Britain has not collapsed. Not yet. The institutions still function, elections are still held, courts still deliver verdicts. And that is precisely why the situation is so grave. What we are witnessing is not a formal breakdown, but the civilisational defeat that precedes the collapse of the Western rule of law.
A Warning from Birmingham
The very fact that a man like Shahid Butt can run in the municipal elections in Birmingham is not a curiosity — it is a warning.
Butt was previously convicted for his role in planning a terrorist attack against the British consulate in Yemen — a past that was subsequently rewarded with employment in the British Home Office, where he worked for twenty years on counterterrorism prevention (yes, really).
He has expressed sympathy for jihad, incited opposition to the holding of a football match between Birmingham and Maccabi Tel Aviv, and openly argued that young Muslim men should get into fighting shape and be prepared for physical confrontation.
His worldview is militant, anti-democratic, and fundamentally incompatible with a Western constitutional state.
And yet he can stand for office. Not despite the system — but because the system no longer has the capacity to say no.
This is where the mistake is made if the case is viewed in isolation. Shahid Butt is not the problem. He is the result.
Borders Administered — But Not Enforced
He is the result of an England that for decades has uncritically imported Islam, and for years has tolerated a massive influx of illegal male migrants whom the state, in practice, no longer even attempts to deport.
Border control has been reduced to administration. The state registers, houses, and subsidises — but does not enforce.
This is not a crisis of capacity. It is a collapse of will.
He is also the result of the fact that England’s largest cities are now led by Muslim mayors, and that in several cities Muslims constitute either a majority or a decisive, powerful minority.
This is often presented as a neutral democratic fact. It is not. It is a structural rupture.
The Post-War Premise Has Disappeared
The Western democratic order after 1945 rested on a premise that no one dares to name anymore: cultural and civilisational homogeneity.
Human rights conventions, treaties, and legal frameworks were drafted in societies where populations shared basic norms — secularism, popular sovereignty, the primacy of the rule of law.
That premise has disappeared with mass Muslim immigration.
Islam is not merely a private faith. It is a comprehensive normative system in which sovereignty belongs to God rather than the people, and in which religious law stands above man-made law.
There are no democratic foundations in either the Qur’an or the Hadith.
Democratically minded (cultural) Muslims do exist — but they are democratically minded in spite of Islam, not because of it.
When Demography Becomes Destiny
Once such a system reaches critical mass, it inevitably translates into political pressure.
Not necessarily through violence, but through votes, institutions, and the gradual reshaping of the public sphere.
This is not polemic. It is an empirical pattern.
That is why it is meaningless to repeat that “democracy must reflect the population.”
A democracy cannot survive if it allows demographic development that votes democracy’s own foundational values out of existence.
A system without conditions of entry is not tolerant. It is self-destructive.
Shahid Butt is precisely what a borderless democracy produces: a man with a documented anti-democratic and violent past, now able to convert demography and identity politics into political legitimacy.
A Breakdown Without Collapse
And here is the point many deliberately misunderstand:
The problem is not, first and foremost, Muslims. Muslims act rationally according to their cultural and religious code.
The problem is that Western societies have allowed — indeed encouraged — a mass immigration that has removed the very preconditions on which our societies were built.
Politicians knew it. Civil servants knew it. Opinion-makers knew it.
And yet they chose treaties over territory, abstract rights over concrete cohesion, moral self-image over civilisational survival.
That is why England is not yet a failed state in the classical sense. The state still functions.
But in a democratic and Western sense, the country is now as close to collapse as one can come without institutions formally ceasing to operate:
A democracy that can neither say no at the border nor in the ballot box — and that no longer dares to define what it is willing to defend.
England is becoming borderless.
And borderless democracies do not survive.
