Crucial Insight into Britian's Senseless, Misguided Self-Destruction

England used communitarianism - its own delegation of its yoke when it was a colonial power, and when there was decolonization, England, wanting to divide to reign and control the situation a little more indirectly, well, it made sure that colonization took place in division. [If you don’t take an interest in geopolitics, it will take an interest in you.]

Today we are going to talk about English multiculturalism, the English multiculturalist and communitarianist project, and the failure of this project, the drift of England into many pitfalls. In particular, we have talked a lot since the years 2024-25 about a phenomenon that I have studied since 2013, that is to say more than ten years ago, the mass rapes in Bedford, Leeds and many English cities, the mass rapes that have been covered up for a very long time in order not to displease multiculturalism, in order not to stigmatize the Pakistani community. This is just one element among so many others.

We will also see the evolution of Londonistan. I was in London at the end of August and it was quite impressive, what I could see walking for hours in all the neighborhoods, of course, not only the center, but including the suburbs, and the evolution of England into a totally uncontrolled and unbalanced multiculturalism. Because multiculturalism, if you have lots of Brazilian, Portuguese, Philippine, Chinese, Indian, and among so many others, an Algerian neighborhood, a Pakistani neighborhood, up to a point, it is a real multiculturalism that can be harmonious.

But here, it is a multiculturalism that is actually monocultural, where there is only one large community that challenges the national community. Why? Because there is a mass effect. When you are too many, you no longer integrate.

And I even take an example that I have known in my family. In Tunisia, there were many Italians, and at one point, there were so many Italians in Tunisia that they became neither Arabs nor French. Tunisia was French, but the Italians remained Italian because of the effect of numbers. We see it in quite a lot of Chinatowns in Asia or in some European countries. So the effect of numbers is very important.

I come back to the English experience. English communitarianism, communalism, as the English say, is an experiment that is absolutely not the fruit of tolerance or of an English system that would be the most tolerant in the world, the first democracy in the world. So one would tolerate the difference. Remember, in the 1990s, the English were very proud that even the worst Islamists could insult and threaten the lives of politicians in the famous park in the center of London, where the right to speak was limitless in the name of a unique conception of liberal democracy.

England, in fact, promoted a multiculturalist system that comes from what is called communalism for purely imperial reasons and absolutely not for tolerance. Let me explain. When England possessed the Indies, it invented the system of self-government and delegation of the government, because the idea was not to be an imperialism that manages everything; that was too expensive and it incited revolts. The idea was to delegate to communities, a kind of indirect imperialism, an imperialism that was less invasive than French imperialism.

The French have always been idealistic. In the end, they were too sincere. When the French did imperialism, they wanted to transmit the light to those who did not want it or who wanted it. But the French wanted to make a kind of proselytism of these values. They wanted to transmit Frenchness to others. The English never sought that.

So look at all the English colonies that later became Australia and Canada. There were developments, and the word is used in English, of separate ratios. On one side, there was this race, on the other, this other race. There were communities that were superimposed but that did not mix. And above all, it was absolutely not about trying to make an Englishman out of the native. They delegated a self-government to him, with his own laws.

And that’s how, even before the partition of Pakistan and India, England greatly encouraged the Islamic phenomenon, which would then become the first Islamist movement, which would also inspire the Muslim Brotherhood. It was the Pakistani model, first with the Muslim League and then the Jama’at-e-Islami movement. England put forward the Islamic identity, at first purely communal, then more political-Islamist, to divide the Indies, so that Hindu India does not control all the Indies. The idea was separatism.

So firstly, England used communitarianism in its own delegation of its yoke, when it was a colonial power. And when there was decolonization, England, wanting to divide to reign and control the situation a little more indirectly, made sure that the colonization took place through division, as it did in Cyprus, by inciting Turkish Muslims against Greek Cypriots, by helping the Turkish irredentist movements to take the whole north of the country, and by clearly helping the Turkish services to train militias, which then committed massacres that led to other massacres.

And we come to the Cypriot civil war, and then to the Turkish intervention, which resulted in 37% of the island of Cyprus now being occupied by Turkey. Well, England did the same thing in India. It was therefore a system of communalism within an imperial logic of divide and rule.

Then, in England, England imported onto its own soil the communitarianism that it had developed to manage an empire. And it said to itself, in the end, we’re going to take advantage of the Commonwealth, the Global Britain, the Commonwealth. In the end, that’s what makes England see itself as an empire, even when it no longer has an empire, or a residual one. It still sees itself as something different from Europe. It’s going to compensate with continental Europe, which it’s also going to try to divide.

We’re going to get into the European Union when it suits us. We’re going to get out of it when it doesn’t suit us anymore. In the meantime, we’ll take everything that interests us. We won’t leave what doesn’t interest us somewhere. Why not? It’s English sovereignism.

But the idea is that England has a global dimension; we can see that very clearly in English propaganda, especially from James Bond. James Bond, what is that? I’ve loved seeing James Bond for 50, 40 years. But in fact, James Bond is huge propaganda for the British model. You’ve noticed that the James Bond scenario always has a super Englishman, a bit of a flirt, a bit… Very virile, of course, a champion who massacres everyone, all alone, against 50. That’s the typical Anglo-Saxon stuff that dreams are made of. But the subliminal message of everything James Bond is that England is tolerant. England has a unique model of democracy.

Even the US secret service is ecstatic about the perfection of both the English model and its liberal democracy, which will enter and cross swords with the bad guys. And you always have the bad guy in James Bond, who is hidden in a cave under an ocean, or who wants to go to Mars and who wants to work up the two greats, America and Soviet Russia, because it was often set during the Cold War, and even now, it’s still a bit of the same scenario. And the super Englishman, the first democracy in the world, tolerant and multicultural, arrives and he’s going to prevent the nuclear world war by defeating the bad guy. That’s the message of James Bond.

There’s a real global soft power in England. And this England thinks that, since it doesn’t reign on the continent, which it tries to divide, in the best of cases, England reigns with globalism. That’s why England was the first power to launch an idea of global government before America took over this soft power for itself.

And so England said to itself, since we’ve lost our colonies, we’re going to continue to be colonialists, but at home. And it imported a mass of inhabitants from its former commonwealth. And what it didn’t foresee, and that’s my whole geopolitical doctrine, is that geopolitics can never be totally separated from civilization, from identity.

When you make a geopolitical doctrine based on interest, on money, on business, on the Commonwealth, the ex-imperial ties, why not, the business, the oil, the English and American majors who worked a lot at the beginning of the last century and to this day to manage the flow of money from the oil and gas wells, all of that is very interesting. And it gives a dimension of power.

On the other hand, when a geopolitics completely fails to take into account the identity factor, well, I mean, I’m getting to my point, we find England’s current problem, where recently, a few days ago, an activist who was responsible for uncovering the scandal of thousands of girls being raped by Pakistani networks, Robinson, encouraged, called for a very large demonstration, according to the authorities, 160,000 people, according to other observers, perhaps 1 million. The streets of the entire capital of London, the whole centre of London, were full of demonstrators who came to say stop to uncontrolled immigration. They were not even horrible racists, as was said, who came to say, let’s get rid of all immigrants, re-migration, not at all. These are people that many have questioned.

They criticize an out-of-control migration system, totally uncontrolled, unmanaged flows, and an immigration that is no longer chosen, but being imposed. And that is the result of the greed of the English leaders who said to themselves, we will perpetuate an imperial system here with the gentry, the English elite, which does not mix, which does not mix at all, the English elite that lives in these beautiful neighbourhoods and that couldn’t care less that their people must suffer a totally uncontrolled immigration and a pauperization. And by the way, I’ll take this opportunity to answer many supporters of Brexit. Many French people idealized Brexit. They didn’t understand anything.

Brexit — when French people, who are more for the civilizational values of Christian Europe, sell Brexit, they forget one thing. Brexit — why was it wanted by the gentry and by the English elite, including the English monarchy? Why wasn’t Brexit prevented by the English deep state? Because Brexit aimed to de-Europeanize England, to make it less constrained by laws, by rules that are after all very burdensome, a phenomenon of European inertia, and to replace European England with a global England. Global Britain, for the English gentry: it will establish its power much more, it will continue to be more of an empire than an England that would be constrained by regulations, European directives. Why not? Except that Global Britain, by betting on the Commonwealth, managed to seduce the English people by telling them to vote for Brexit.

And to motivate the English people, they didn’t tell the truth, that they want to continue to be the capital of world finance, that the logic was very financial, it was multinational, it was an imperial and transnational logic. They lied to the English people; they told the English people that Brexit was the only solution to escape an uncontrolled immigration. But in fact, what the elite that promoted Brexit, including Farage, didn’t say, and I remember in the European Parliament, Farage was very suspicious about debates such as Islamic immigration, radical Islamism, extra-European immigration. He was very, very, very suspicious, more than suspicious, although usually he can be extremely brave and very populist.

Why was he very suspicious? Because the supporters of Global Britain simply wanted to replace a European migrant who arrived with European rights from member countries of the European Union, the Baltics, the Czechs, the Poles, which were becoming problematic.

The English power could no longer stand an immigration, I would say, of a certain quality, a European immigration, an immigration that comes from the countries of the European Community, with the rights of free movement, including the creation of companies specific to the countries of the European Union. And, in fact, the supporters of Brexit wanted to stop a Christian European white immigration that came mainly from Eastern Europe, in favor of a Pakistani, Indian, African or Jamaican immigration that came from Anglo-Saxon countries or the Commonwealth. And as a result, the latest demonstrations that took place in London made it clear to those who have a more identitarian geopolitical vision that sovereignism is not necessarily identitarian.

Some sovereignists are not necessarily in favor of the defense of European, Christian civilization. The proof — the supporters of Brexit wanted to completely stop a compatible European-Christian immigration. We can call it whatever we want, or Slav, whatever you want, but compatible, since they are European peoples who come from the same culture, the same religion, in addition to being members of the European Union with fairly easy free movement.

And what happened after Brexit? England still needs manpower. The people who were behind Brexit, including Boris Johnson, very well known for preventing Zelensky from signing the peace treaty with the Russians and who is partly responsible for the Ukrainian drama. Boris Johnson has always been an activist for the Pakistani lobby in Pakistan, but also in Great Britain, the Pakistani Islamic lobby. Boris Johnson and other Brexiteers were the biggest supporters of an immigration from the Commonwealth that is absolutely not European and which is not Christian and which is much less easy. So it’s not solely Muslim, but it’s largely Muslim. So I come to the end of my remarks.

Why have I said all this? The English Empire in India, it seems very far from all this. The communalism at the time of the Muslim League in Pakistan, the creation of Pakistan in 1947-1948. All this is very old. The partition of India, the Commonwealth, Brexit.

We’ve talked about Brexit, but because there is an extremely logical path. This empire does not see itself as a European empire. England is seen as a separate continent, or rather as a separate world island. It sees itself as Global Britain. The English elite, the one that’s been in power for a very, very long time in any case, it sees itself as universal, it sees itself as global.

The English gentry and bourgeoisie for a long time couldn’t have cared less whether England remains Christian, white, European, and so on and so forth. They don’t care, but to a degree that you cannot imagine. The only goal is global, globalist power. And so England preferred a Brexit that made it compatible with the continuation of its history — the English Empire, of which the Commonwealth is the result, rather than a European destiny.

And that’s why the people who protested a few days ago with Tommy Robinson in the streets of London against uncontrolled immigration and non-indigenous immigration, or mostly Pakistani and Islamic immigration, which is the reason for an increase in radical Islamism in London, in all districts of London, including the most sophisticated now. It is this phenomenon that the English bourgeoisie believed could be contained within certain districts but would not contaminate others.

Now, almost all the districts of London are impacted by Islamism. So, of course, in the working-class neighborhoods it’s going to be low-cost Pakistani Islamism with small grocery stores, small businesses and a fairly proletarian immigration. Except that in the rich neighborhoods, it’s going to be people who are veiled, as they are in the Emirates, in Qatar, or in Saudi Arabia or in the Gulf countries. In both cases, you have an Islamic lobby from the bottom up, which comes from the Gulf countries or which comes from proletarian immigration, but which unites in its desire to apply Sharia law and to change the customs, the laws and the rules of this country, which was the first liberal democracy in the world, a country that invented freedom of expression without any limits. Well, today, in England, I’m not saying it’s good or bad.

Personally, I have never been a fan of blasphemy, but in England, when there was the story of the Muhammad cartoons, all the English media had orders from the English government not to reproduce or show part of a cartoon. Today, in England, a country of freedom of expression where one once had the right to say what one wanted without any limits. Today, the law that punishes blasphemy has been de facto re-established in London. In London, no longer does any authority, no longer do any official media dare, to broadcast the Danish cartoons or Charlie Hebdo. Ultimately, if we are against cartoons, if we don’t like cartoons of a blasphemous nature, as in my case, ultimately, some will rejoice.

But that shows that it is not to please Christianity that England has de facto restored the laws that prohibit blasphemy. It’s because the Islamic lobby has become out of control. The Islamic lobby is very powerful.

I myself was in Wembley recently at the Coldplay concert. It was very interesting because sociologically, Wembley is right in the middle of a neighborhood with very, very high immigration. I walked for hours from Wembley to the centre, and from the centre to Wembley, the district of Wembley, where the famous stadium was where this concert was located. And I had previously met an analyst from English intelligence 25 or 27 years ago, someone from MI6, when I was doing an internship as a civil servant, who spoke to us for a week about the reality of Islamism in England. And I remember that many years ago, this English official was bragging about the fact that London had become a Londonistan. You heard that right. A man who was a servant of the English state was bragging about, and from intelligence, he was bragging that most of the Islamist movements were represented in London. And I will remember for the rest of my life, he was very, very proud to say, we, unlike the French, we don’t have this anti-clerical secularism, we respect the bearded men, we respect the Islamists, including, he bragged that England had welcomed even the most badly regarded Islamists, the most persecuted, the most banned in Muslim countries.

He was bragging, for example, that Hizb ut-Tahrir, which was considered extremist by Hamas — imagine that — was forbidden in all the Gulf countries, Which at the time financed al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood. England was bragging about having welcomed all the movements, all the movements of radical Sunni Islamism. And he said, we will never have an attack. We are tolerant, as we have a tolerant system, we don’t blaspheme. We are not against religious things. We accept that even policewomen are veiled when they are Muslim. We accept that officials and veils, even the almost total veil, not the one in Afghanistan, but not far from it, really the Islamic uniform in public service, that is completely tolerated.

And of course, in all of society, blasphemy is forbidden. We will never insult or criticize Islam in the English media. And so we will never have a terrorist attack. Everything will go so well. And since we are for communalism, for communitarianism, as we give a lot of rights to Muslims in their own neighborhoods, well, there will never be animosity, since we are tolerant. And in fact, Islamism is only intolerant when it is not allowed, when it is forbidden.

This is the thesis of Olivier Roy in France. Radical Islamism, here or in Muslim countries, would only strike because it had been persecuted by secularists in our country or Arab nationalists in Muslim countries. This was the great thesis of the English and Americans throughout the ’80s, ’90s and 2000s. And then there was a return to reality in 2005, the Islamist attack that killed 60, or maybe fifty-some, in London. And there, the English found themselves with the first great Islamist attack in their face, perpetrated by Al-Qaeda. Then, for several years, there were very common knife attacks, a kind of knife intifada, as we saw in Israel a few years earlier. And from the 2010s, 2014, 2015, after the Arab Spring, we had a series of rather low-cost attacks, smaller scale, but regular, every day, every week, where sometimes sons of refugees, who had everything, who had benefited from everything, they had benefited from a welcome, tolerance programs, programs to fight racism, due to the insertion, for example, of people that the English secret services had trained in Libya to fight against Qadhafi.

We had families who had benefited from this MI6 aid program in Libya to fight against Qadhafi. Their children have committed attacks on English soil. So the English were shocked. Those who demonstrated recently said to themselves, we’ve shown limitless tolerance, at the same level as the Swedes or the Belgians. And we have not been repaid at all. We have been attacked, more than some countries that are openly anti-immigration, such as Poland or Hungary, which have never been attacked by Islamists.

We welcomed them, we promoted Islamism, we helped the Muslim Brotherhood since its creation, since 1928. We helped all the Islamist movements that were possible. We have always been the great allies of Saudi Arabia, of Qatar, of Kuwait. We even defended Kuwait with the Americans against the secular Saddam Hussein. We welcomed everyone at home. We were the first to have anti-racist organizations that condemned and fought very firmly against Islamophobia, while England tolerates Christianophobia perfectly well. And all this, we have not been repaid in return. We have daily, weekly attacks.

We have had mass rapes, without equal in any Western democracy. Thousands of girls, during the years 2012, 2013, 2014, up to 2017, have been raped. And Starmer, the current Prime Minister, who headed the prosecution, shut down the operation. The police, who were no better than the judges, shut down this operation. And better, the man who revealed this story, Tommy Robinson, OK, yes, a former hooligan, so of course everything he says is false. For years, between 2013 and when Musk, Elon Musk revealed this story of mass rapes, it was said that it was English far-right propaganda, since it was a man of far-right origin who had revealed the story. I had heard that in the European Parliament. He had come to express himself before he went to trial. He told this story. Sometimes I thought maybe he was exaggerating. He came from a certain milieu, etc. And then he was imprisoned. And guess why?

Robinson was imprisoned solely because he had revealed the identity of several Pakistani imams and Islamists who were part of a network that had issued fatwas and that had orchestrated these mass rapes by legitimizing them by issuing fatwas that allowed a Muslim to be exonerated by telling them, if you rape an infidel, because often they were girls who had been caught in orphanages, in extremely disadvantaged environments, children of alcoholics who were half in the street. And so for them, de facto, they were pagans. They didn’t have a very high morality. Often they were girls half in the street, some who had been almost abandoned or who had escaped from orphanages or who were alcoholics or who were drug addicts. And so we had mass rapes.

We found scenes, like in the film Taken, with the Albanian mafia, of girls who had been raped a hundred times a day, who were in a dormitory with guys who were standing in line. These were industrial rapes. All of this was hidden for years so as not to displease the Pakistani lobby. Because we found imams who were part of the Muslim Council of Britain, the English national lobby. And we found links between the official pro-Islamic Pakistani-English lobby and some imams who issued fatwas justifying mass rapes.

So if this story of mass rapes were revealed too much, it risked completely discrediting all of England’s policy over the years, which had favored, within its own country, an enormous Islamist Pakistani lobby that was extremely radical.

To give you an example, the official lobby, tolerated by the Pakistani-Muslim-English authorities, had encouraged the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, which called for the killing of a Muslim Indian who had written the famous book, ‘The Satanic Verses.’ You realize that this was a lobby that was already extremely radical. So we imprisoned the man who had simply filmed, when leaving the courthouse through the back door, he had revealed the identity, the face, the name, the first name of a number of Pakistani defendants who had participated in this horror of industrial rapes over more than ten years, of thousands of young English girls caught up in Pakistani networks.

So there were taxi drivers, small businessmen, unemployed people, good people, students, old people, married men, celibates, sexually hungry people, others who simply thought that it was a good plan, not very expensive. And for years, we killed all of this until Elon Musk revealed the thing. So we still said, it’s Musk who is saying this, it’s probably false, except that the English media ended up picking up the story and we knew that everything was true and it was even worse than what the first people who revealed the matter had said. We initially thought it was 1,000 people. It was about 5,000 to 6,000 young girls who were mass raped for years in a total omerta, and I repeat, with the complicity of the police, who didn’t want to disappoint, a bit like Sartre said, don’t talk about gulags, it will disappoint the people who vote communist, and they said it would make Billancourt [a suburb of Paris] cry.

So we’re going to say nothing about a reality, so that there will be no political repercussions contrary to our ideology. That’s what happened and I conclude, England is totally adrift. I walked for hours in all the bourgeois and working-class neighborhoods, including — I stayed for a week, I did some jogging, so one goes faster jogging than walking. I saw signs in Arabic everywhere. It doesn’t bother me. I like the Arabic language. I studied it. That in itself is not what’s annoying, but I saw everywhere an extremely present Islamic lobby, Islamic businesses, so here too, people have the right to ask for halal food, it doesn’t bother me at all, but one feels a presence of the Islamist lobby, and not just Islamic, but extremely powerful Islamist, and in recent years a number of observers, including Muslims in England, have risen up against the fact that the English justice system has tolerated Islamic Court.

That means that today, there are parallel courts — that don’t have the same weight as an English court, of course — which are consultative courts. But if two people who want to divorce, for example, a Pakistani couple or other Muslim couple, want to divorce, and both accept the decision of an Islamist judge, well, the judge, when I say Islamist, because often Islam in England is not represented by moderate Islam movements, but often they are Pakistani groups, Algerian, Turkish, Indian, very, very well-known to be deeply rooted in Islamism. Often, these are movements close to the Islamic Jama’at or the Deobandi movement. The Deobandi movement is the legal school of the Taliban. Or they are people close to the Salafism of the Gulf states or the Muslim Brotherhood.

So these are Islamist movements that have taken the lead, the control of most mosques in England. And when an Islamic judge of the famous Islamic Court says, well, the woman is wrong, the gentleman can leave with the children, which happens extremely often. And the woman is forced to see her child torn from her. Well, often these are the courts about which the English tell us, they’re only consultative. But as soon as the two people agree, because of the English case law system, which is not a legal system like ours, Napoleonic or Roman, with a single law for all, in the case law system, one can always add to existing law through new sources that evolve over time, with decisions, with power relations and also with the change of the social fabric.

And so more and more, we have case law and tolerance by normal courts towards Islamic courts that accept rulings totally contrary to the all the tradition of England, which was one of the first countries for women’s freedom, for sexual liberation, the right of homosexuals, the right to blasphemy, freedom of thought without any limit. All of this today is being called into question by multiculturalism. In short, my conclusion is that English multiculturalism is not multicultural.

The only community today that challenges the national community is a community, and I would not say Muslim, because there are Muslims who are absolutely not problematic insofar as they want a peaceful Islam, the family Islam, the Islam that is about worship, the right to worship, to be buried, why not, to have halal food, etc.

But in England, it is radical Islamism that has a political project. And the political project of radical Islamism operates through infiltration. And we will be able to show in this video the face of Mr. Patel. Patel is an Islamist from this English Indo-Pakistani lobby who was appointed as head of the English school system. And that’s absolutely unbelievable when you know his position, his background. Someone who comes from the radical Islamist lobby has had an official role in English national education.

So this English multiculturalism is monocultural. It is an Islamist monism that aims to impose its norms, its rules, and also its power in the neighborhoods by means of infiltration, but also of numbers. And it shows that when you no longer control immigration, you submit to it.

And when you submit to immigration, it is the result of an irresponsibility of politicians who, I conclude, as I began, who were careless about separating the interests or the definition of their geopolitical strategy. They removed from their strategy, from their strategic or geopolitical reasoning, any identitarian factor. They underestimated the civilizational factor and the identitarian factor. Now, when you underestimate the identitarian factor and the civilizational factor, well, that’s what I call the Qatar syndrome. You have a country that is an ally because it does business with you. There is gas, there are agreements, there is soccer, there is soft power, there are investments, etc. It is an economic partner that is allied in a lot of things. There are also strategic bases, notably American and English, in the Gulf countries.

For us it’s the Emirates. But we can very well have a country that is a strategic and economic ally because it is in business networks or military organizations or comfortable alliances.

On the other hand, it can very well, as a civilizational dynamic, be totally contrary to your interests and actually want to submerge you, since the Islamists’ plan is not only to submerge England, but all miscreant societies will one day have to be not only Islamized religiously — that’s private faith — but they will have to be Islamized legally, socially and politically.

The totalitarian system of Islamism aims to submerge all other societies, India, China, Iran. And besides, the last attacks that were committed by Daesh were not committed in France, but in Russia and Iran. This shows that the project of Islamist totalitarianism is global. And those who brought in immigrants with too large an Islamic proportion have already made a mistake. But on top of that, if they had been integrated by a proactive policy of an integrating patriotism that imposes a separation of religion and politics, it could possibly have gone well.

No, they gave them a base, they offered them to Islamist agitators and to entrepreneurs of Islamism who were able to get, on a silver platter, communities that are sometimes more Islamist in England, in France, or in Italy, or in Belgium, or in Sweden, or in Germany, than their own relatives in their countries of origin.

And that reminds us of what the Minister of the Interior of the United Arab Emirates said in a video that you can watch again. He said recently, the day will come radical political and totalitarian Islamism will be much when stronger, more present, and will have much more power and the power to cause harm in your countries than in our own Islamic societies.