Thinking Class
Thinking Class is a weekly long-form interview podcast exploring the cultural, historical, and civilisational forces shaping England, Britain, and the Western world.
Hosted by John Gillam, the show brings together historians, philosophers, theologians, economists, and public intellectuals for conversations that go beyond the news cycle by examining the deep roots of the West's present predicament and asking what genuine recovery might require.
Guests have included David Starkey, Lord Jonathan Sumption, Lord Nigel Biggar, Robert Tombs, Peter Hitchens, Lionel Shriver, Roy Baumeister, Kathleen Stock, Carl Trueman, and many others.
If you value serious conversation about Britain, the West, and the forces shaping our future, then this is the show for you.
New episodes every week.
Thinking Class
#110 - Renaud Camus - “The Disaster”: The Great Replacement, Elite Failure, And The Crisis Of The West
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Renaud Camus, writer, painter, photographer, was born in 1946. He is now the author of more than one hundred and sixty works. His works are marked by the question of meaning and the fight against the industrialisation of man and the massacre of landscapes.
In this episode of Thinking Class, John Gillam and essayist Renaud Camus engage in a wide-ranging conversation about what Camus has long described as “the disaster” — the civilisational, cultural, and demographic transformations reshaping France, Britain, and much of the Western world.
Camus is widely known in public debate for his writings on demographic change in Europe, often discussed superficially or polemically as "The Great Replacement". In this conversation, we move beyond caricature to engage his work on its own terms: as an attempt to diagnose what has changed within Western leadership classes, cultural memory, and moral language — and why these changes have proven so destabilising.
Topics discussed include:
- What Camus means by “the disaster” and why he sees it as civilisational rather than conspiratorial
- The role of political, media, and bureaucratic elites — whom Camus calls the “friends of the disaster” — in enabling demographic and cultural rupture
- Responsibility, narrative control, and why discussion of consequences is often displaced by moral abstraction
- Britain and France in comparative perspective, including demographic trends, historical memory, and elite ideology
- The prohibition on speaking of ancestry, roots, and continuity — and what is lost when a people forgets its own past
- Globalism, social engineering, and the moralisation of ideology
- Ecological objections to simplistic “solutions,” including unchecked population growth
- Why Camus rejects violence and insists on lawful, civic, and cultural means of resistance
- His reflections on monarchy, national form, and the endurance of peoples
- Christian hope, recovery, and the possibility that nations can outlast periods of profound disfigurement
The conversation concludes, as always on Thinking Class, with a personal reflection: what Renaud Camus has changed his mind about during the course of his life and what led him to think differently.
About Thinking Class:
Thinking Class is a long-form interview podcast exploring the cultural, historical, and moral forces shaping England, Britain, and the wider Western world.
Hosted by John Gillam, the show features serious conversations with historians, academics, and independent thinkers.
Thinking Class is concerned with discovering long-term patterns over headlines and hot-takes. Expect historically-grounded analysis on matters of national character, institutions, demography, belief, and political legitimacy.
New episodes every week.
▶️ Subscribe on YouTube
🎧 Follow on Spotify
📰 Read on Substack
🐦 Follow on X
Hello, classmates, and welcome to Thinking Class. I'm John Gillam, and in this episode, I'm joined by Monsieur Zeno Camus. Monsieur Camus is a writer, painter, photographer born in 1946. He is the author of more than 160 works, which are marked by the question of meaning and the fight against the industrialization of man and the massacre of landscapes. In this episode, Monsieur Camus and I engage in a wide-ranging conversation about what Camus has long described as the disaster, the civilizational cultural and demographic transformations reshaping France, Britain, and much of the Western world. Camus is widely known in public debate for his writings on demographic change in Europe, often discussed superficially or polemically under the label the Great Replacement. In this conversation, we move beyond caricature to engage with Monsieur Camus's work on its own terms as an attempt to diagnose what has changed within Western leadership classes, cultural memory, and moral languages, and why these changes have been so destabilizing. We think out loud about what Camus means by the disaster and why he sees it as civilizational rather than conspiratorial, the role of political, media, and bureaucratic elites in enabling demographic and cultural rupture, responsibility, and why discussion of consequences is often displaced by moral abstraction, historical memory and elite ideology, the prohibition on speaking of ancestry, roots, and continuity, social engineering and the moralization of ideology. We also talk about the British monarchy, the endurance of peoples, and so much more. Thinking Class is a weekly long-form podcast about culture, history, demography, and the future of England, Britain, and the West. Subscribe on YouTube, Spotify, your podcast platform of choice, and on Substack for essays and further reading. Enjoy the show, classmates. Welcome to Thinking Class. Thanks so much for joining me. Thank you for the invitation. Well, it's my pleasure. I'm sure those watching and listening who have heard of you may be split into two camps. Those who have heard of the Great Replacement Theory may see you as the man behind the conspiracy theory. For those who have read you and taken time to understand you will likely find you to be the observer of reality in a Europe that has undergone widespread demographic change. We will, of course, talk about those things, but I thought it would be interesting for people to understand how it was we got here to a future and a present in which demographic change has occurred at such a rapid pace. But before we get into that, I thought we could start with what you've become known as. You have a title of a series of essays called The Enemy of the Disaster. So let's begin with that. What is the disaster that you speak of?
SPEAKER_01Well, I must say I never wrote a book called Enemy of the Disaster. That's an American selection anthology of my writing, and the the book, the title isn't tiny um the choice of the American publisher, which was fine with me. He asked me if I agreed, and I agreed. I never wrote the phrase enemy of a disaster. I called what I uh wrote was and used very often was the phrase, the phrase friends of the disasters. For people who are instrumental in the disaster, which is indeed political, demographical, colonial, every time everything also scholar, universitarian about teaching, for instance. It's one of the worst disasters in France, in Europe, and probably in America as well. So I was very much against the Friends of the Disaster, and the American publisher of Oban Books decided to call the Anthology The Choice of Text separate text from several several books they did uh Enemy of the Disaster.
SPEAKER_00Okay, and you have referred to the Friends of the Disaster, and uh perhaps we could unpack that a little bit more. So what what positions of society do you think have um made way for what you have called the the replaceable man? Um and what what are they responsible for? What should they be held account for?
SPEAKER_01Well, uh good example would be, for instance, sociologists, sociology in general, practitioner of sociology are usually very much friends of the disaster, or all the practitioner of human sciences have been of great help, not all of them of course, but many of them, the majority of them, have been of great help to the disaster. But as well, judges, journalists, teachers, uh friends of the disasters, uh many and and you you've mentioned uh education a couple of times already, and I I think it's fair to say, and maybe this is a paraphrase rather than a direct quote, but you have made the case that our leadership classes, those friends of the disaster, have undergone what you refer to as le petit remplacement, the the little replacement.
SPEAKER_00And w within that you argue that these leaders of society, those with positions of responsibility, have become decultured. There's been a deculturation, and it's and that has been uh propagated through uh a a cheapening education, an education that does not tr seek to pass on the fruits of Western civilization and and national cultural identity. And you you this is the paraphrase, uh Monsieur Camus, you you said that uh a people who knows their classics would not give permission to be sent to the dustbin of history. So perhaps you can tell us why you think it is so important for our leadership class and and those who educate us and and adjudicate over our daily lives to be well versed in those classical fruits of civilization and and and why we wouldn't have seen the pace of change we've seen in Europe if if that hadn't been um cast aside.
SPEAKER_01Well, I do think indeed by deculturation was indispensable to what I call the great replacement. Uh if it had not happened, uh people would have never accepted uh what is happening to them, that is, the colonization, the change of people and civilization, the one implying the other, the genocide by replacement or by substitution, what is happening to France, to England, to Germany, to Austria, to Sweden, to most countries in Western Europe. They had to be deculturalized first, that is, to forget their history, their culture, uh everything they were. They have no idea anymore of what they are, including, of course, they had to be deprived of their language. I'm not sure of what happened in England, but in France the French language is in a state of general collapse. People do not understand it anywhere anymore. It's it's getting very difficult to have a conversation in French because people understand themselves less and less. Words have so much change in their meaning that it's very difficult to communicate. And of course, the rather complex traditional grammar has entirely collapsed. Mostly, I must say, under the influence of uh English. People speak English in French. It's a very strange thing that the French are so bad in speaking English in English, but they are very good speaking English in French. I think it's probably because of the bad translation. They are using English grammar in French, which is very strange. They have no idea of English grammar, but since they hear it on television and on films, they use it in French. So they are very much deprived of their language, as they are deprived, I think, of most everything. One of the most important book, uh, the most important among my little production, at least the one of the biggest books I wrote is called Depossession in French. It would be in English dispossession. I think people have been dispossessed of a lot of things, uh, including by sociology and by science in general, they have been deprived of uh their what in French would be in regard. They look their way to look, uh they are told permanent what they see is wrong, but they don't really see what they see, but but they are mistaken in what they see. But science and uh social science and sociology know better than them what they are seeing. They have been deprived of uh uh uh of their way to look, they have been deprived of uh um everything they were. They are almost they're even deprived of the suffering. They cannot even say that what is happening to them is horrible, which would have seemed absolutely a total nightmare to their, if not to their parents, at least to their great parents, to their ancestors. And they cannot even complain about that because if they do, they are uh not only are they given all sorts of terrible names, but they feel terrible than themselves and be taught to feel terrible if they resent what they see and if they suffer from it. They have been deprived of everything, they've been deprived of their past, they have been deprived of their culture. The great replacement doesn't even replace that he does more than replace, he always also pretends that what has been has not been. It is the first genocide in history which is also retrospective. It doesn't even say that people have to be replaced and to disappear, it tells them that they have never existed. And history itself is um in replace what it is still there, and uh it is not taught anymore. Also, people have absolutely no feeling of history anymore. And if sometime history is on the screen, uh they are it is what is shown is uh pure lies. The most uh famous and caricatural example is uh all the queen of Queens of uh Henry the Seventh being preferably black or Asiatic or whatever. I mean, at the also at the court of Mary Stuart or the courtiers are black, and such like in 16th century uh England and Scotland, a lot of people were black. Also there were about three or four black persons, probably in London in the 16th century.
SPEAKER_00Indeed, there are so many contemporary examples of what you've just described uh taking place here in Britain, so amongst our academic class for the last few years there has been an attempt to uh call into question, in fact, that's probably putting it too lightly, um, to dismiss the existence of the Anglo-Saxons, for example. And so they are now being referred to with a different title, which doesn't extend the same uh level of indigenity, uh should we say, than they would to other peoples across the world who have been established within their territories for um however many generations. So that so there's that. We've also seen this week, actually, Monsieur Camus, our um a public body called English Heritage, which is responsible for uh overseeing and being the steward of the um the still existing and also ruined um buildings across the country, whether they are castles, abbeys, cathedrals, Roman ruins. And this week they um decided to tweet that um Christmas came from the Romans. It was a worshiping of the sun god, and this is also the same organization that with through every opportunity will try to promote um the um first peoples of Britain being being black. And indeed, the the the BBC did the same thing. They um installed a plaque um on Beachy Head, which is in Sussex, facing towards France, in the direction of France. Um, and the plaque said that they found the remains of Beachy Head woman who was an was of African origin. Well, genetic studies have just been released this week to say that is not true, but this is too late. It has been put in children's television programs and interschools and all of those things. So I think you are right. People are told a different story now and then not allowed to believe that they that their own uh group may have their their own origins. Well, one thing that we we should pick up on, uh Monsieur Camus, is you spoke about the forgetting of history. And uh one of your European neighbours, Spain, um, seemed to be going through an even bigger demographic change, an even larger demographic change than even France and Britain. So in the last um year, I believe, there have been one and a half million new arrivals from North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. That's 2% of the population. And uh many of these will be um Islamic in with regards to their faith. And of course, Spain history will tell us engage in a civilizational battle against the followers of that faith in that part of the world. Um how do you think the forgetting of history came about? How how how how did an elite class that even as far back as the 1950s that understood history and the histories of peoples and the civilizational battles that had taken place throughout the centuries, how did that all get forgotten so quickly? What what do you suppose there?
SPEAKER_01I think the whole concept of history is uh unpopular to what I call general replacism, which is, I think, the main ideology, the strongest uh totalitarianism now with as only rival Islamism. Global replacisms want people are pure unity. I think one of the great turns is that the inscription of people in time has to disappear for global replacism. They want people which are self-engendered. Does that make sense? I mean, also engendered, like if they had no parents, like if they had no past. There is an enormous work of uh, for instance, the geographical localization have to be very actively desistored. That's a tough one, desistorized, deshistoricised. Okay, dehistoricized. Yes. All the name of region in France have been changed and have no meaning at all whatsoever to people. So they are all from nowhere. Uh for instance, Provence has become Paca. There's been an enormous region called uh Auvergne-Rhone Alp, which doesn't mean a thing that people in Cronoble in the Alps are now in Auvergne. And I think something happened uh several times in England and in Scotland. I used to love the name of the counties like Clackman and Shah and Zach and Ross and Cromerty and all that has disappeared. So people are from places uh with um names deprived of any history, and that phenomenon is absolutely everywhere, like in France in cars, of course, uh no more reference to where you are from. People have to be from nowhere, from nowhere in place and from nowhere in times. And of course, well, I think one of the great revolutions in which the American and I must say the English are uh very prominent, is the disappearance of uh last names, what I call in one of my books a civilization of first names. People have only first names. So they are the inventor of themselves. The the first name is uh start with you and will end with you. Uh as a as a the last name is inherited. You were mentioning uh uh English heritage. By the way, I don't think that the national trust being English or Scottish is much better in that respect. But the name English heritage is very significant. What people do not want, his precisely heritage, things which have started before then. In French recent culture, a man of great importance was Pierre Baudieu, who wrote a book called Les Héritiers, the inheritance. And uh I wrote myself a small book which which had for origin at conference I gave at the University of Edinburgh in the company of Roger Screton about 18, 10, or 15 years ago. The title in French is simple les inheritiers, but in English it's very complicated because the the name héritiers seems to have uh something uh negative and it's the inheritors, so it would be the inheritance. People don't herit of don't inherit of anything, they don't even inherit of the n of uh of any names. Names are slowly disappearing in open space society, be there, be then the name of person or the name of places, and everything is changed all the time, including all the time, including the name of streets, for instance. In the in Metropols, you change the name of streets all the time. They are in a self-invented world, which is exactly what global replacism uh wants, because if people have to be replaced, and indeed they have for them, they must have no inscription in time. They must be self-invented, self-created all the time.
SPEAKER_00This this r global replacism that you've been speaking of. I think it's fair to say that one of the most potent vectors of global replacism is the internet. There is a homogenized internet culture which, to make reference to some of your comments so far, Monsieur Camus, is responsible for what you're seeing in France with the change of language, including likely Americanized English that has washed around the digital ether. We're seeing it here, actually. I I have found there to be a stark divide between generations. There is a whole set of generations beneath us who seem to talk in an impervious language, which is used internationally to a certain extent. You can find the same youth speaking that language in all of the Anglophone countries, and it is likely in the other Western European countries as well. And I suppose my one observation is that some of the very popular accounts on Twitter or YouTube do seem to be increasingly those that are trying to interrogate and retain somewhat of a heritage. So, for example, I have seen several YouTube accounts set up which have picked up subscribers in the tens and hundreds of thousands very quickly that were effectively focused on the origins of the English people or the history of the English people without the revisionism. So my question to you is what hope do you see that there might be a chance to overturn this replacism and inject some sense of um our each of our own national roots into people's minds again and give them some sense of belonging and something to look after and maintain and to cherish. Do you see any prospect there?
SPEAKER_01Yes, well, uh if I had no hope, I would not be here speaking to you, or I wouldn't be on the on the social um social what social organization. Media? Yeah. Yes. You you you incriminate in in one way social medias, but of course they are only part of uh internet in general and cybernetics in general, so I think cybernetics, which means the government of the world, cybernetics etymologically is the way you govern a ship, but also a state. And of course global replacement is very much uh part of cybernetics or the or the other way around. But as you very rightly said, it might be also used against global replacement. We are, at least I am, but I I think that many people are using the arms of the enemies because we have no other arms. For instance, uh I have been expelled of all my classical publishers, and uh my books exist only on Amazon, which is a total contradiction in terms, because Amazon is, of course, one of the great forces of global replacism. So it's what I call riding the dragoon, or like a judo using the forces of the enemy, and it's a good thing if the social media can be used as a mean of resistance. The the form of resistance I uh think is the most efficient now is what I call decolonialism, that is really realizing that Europe and France and England are much more colonialized than they ever colonialize themselves, because the essence of colonization is a transfer of population, and uh there are of course many more African or Asiatics in uh in France or in England and in Europe in general than there ever were Europeans uh uh people in Africa or in Asia, even at the peak of uh North South colonization. And if we realize and admit that truth that we are not only colonialized, but much more colonialized that we ever colonialized ourselves, the the answer is evident and bringing hope because uh most colonization have ended up with decolonization and the arm we are to use are the arms of decolonization, that is a revolt against colonization, and the people who do it and the people who impose it, because of course the the specific character of the colonization in Europe is that it is threefold, like slavery was uh slavery was called also the triangular trade and the colonization of Europe is also triangular, because the people who do it are not necessarily the people who want it, and the people who want it are not necessarily people. I mean, in in my view, they are more uh a system or the system, as uh Frederick Taylor uh would have said, that uh specific peoples are just uh more uh logical uh web that uh uh determinate will of people. I never thought that people one day would set in a room and decided that wanted to change the population of Europe and replace it. I think replacement is the very gesture of modernity in general, and that great replacement, enormous as it is, is only a part or even a small part of replacement, injuriable replacement being again the essential gesture of modernity after at least the second industrial revolution, which is all about replacement with figure like Taylor, which I already named, or uh Henry Ford, for instance, whose influence on the two main totalitarianism of the twentieth century, namely Nazism and Soviet communism, has been terribly, terribly under evaluated and never seriously um studied.
SPEAKER_00As you were talking about the reality that due to the demographic change, the wide scale of it, that the argument could be made that the British have been colonized at a greater scale than they ever colonized themselves. And through your writings you explain that all of the crimes and um the injustices that have been committed within that time, though I will, for the sake of uh safety, caveat that of course not everyone who has arrived on these shores uh is a criminal and dangerous, or not wanting to be part of the civilization and not wanting to steward it. In fact, I've met many people who have, but the reality is that it hasn't all been a positive story and quite the opposite. And you wrote in one of your recent books, um, which you are referencing now, decolonization, about Queen Elizabeth II and King Charles the Third. And I would be interested in if you could share your opinions of what you think they ought to have done in their positions as the supreme head of state, the stewards of the nation, because you you did have um less than flattering um words for them. You weren't insulting, but you said what they have overseen is not quite right. So, in your own words, uh what what do you make of our monarchs, uh, King Charles III and his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, and their role in the Great Replacement?
SPEAKER_01Well, I think that at any time they could have spoken, and that they should have spoken. People always say, and of course they are right, that for they are deprived of any effective power by the constitution or the non-constitution of Britain. For one thing I think this is false, but because there are general principles older than the modern use, which makes them an obligation to speak. Uh and at any moment they could speak, because I think what happened between the beginning and the end of the reign of Queen Elizabeth II is uh probably the worst disaster to use the word again, which has happened in the history of Great Britain ever. There has never been such a thing that a general change of people and the destruction of uh English civilization. And they have not said a word about this. They have done as if they were not even seeing what was happening, and that is impossible. It is impossible not uh witnessing what has happened. They were like uh in some countries, like like in India, for instance, or from in the French colonial empire, in in uh in Tunisia, for instance, there was uh such a thing called the bay, which was a local dynasty, and under French colonization they they were very comfortable, they they were kept in their palaces, they were they had an allowance, and uh they didn't say a word, they they were very pleased to such an extent that when decolonization came they had to leave because they were very much compromised with the French colonial regime. And uh I think that the present king is much more compromised with global replacism and with Islamism, that for instance the king of the Belgian, Leopold III, who lost his throne after the last war, just because he had been there, he didn't leave, contrary to other monarchs like the king of Denmark, Akon VII, uh, or the Queen of the Netherlands. They left the Queen of Belgium, Leopold III stayed and he lost his throne because he had that address been there. But the King of England now is doing much more than just uh being there. Uh and I must say, all this is to me totally impossible to understand. I felt for a long time that the disaster in France had for explanation the less but honorable behavior of the French uh were for instance losing the war in 1914 and being occupied and losing in such a terrible way. And I thought maybe they were accepting passively what was happening because they had they never recovered from the uh traumatism of defeat and of occupation and of collaboration with the German from their Vichy government. But in England it's it's exactly the contrary. They covered themselves with glory by resisting the German and the Nazi and the Luftwaffe and tremendous forces, and for one, for several months, for two at least two years, they were absolutely alone in the world resisting. So when Queen Elizabeth came, the country was, of course, made poorer by the war I fought and by the bombings and the destruction, but it was delighting in this Britishness and lying in glory for its resistance to Nazism and uh and the German. And how could that happen? How in so few years could they accept an occupation which was maybe not as official as the French as the German occupation in France, but was certainly more exhaustive, but in some aspect at least as dangerous for their identity and the independence of the country. How could they accept that, which is to me a great mystery, which I can only explain by the little replacement, which is a condition of the great replacement to spell things out for listeners and viewers who aren't particularly um au fay, to borrow a French term, with the statistical change of the demographics, focusing here on the United Kingdom, the Office for National Statistics, which is our um official governing body which tells you everything you need to know about British society, uh, recently released a projection which said that in the United Kingdom, the white British will become a minority by the 2060s.
SPEAKER_00In England, it will be before that because of the pace of change so far. So this is already true in London, Leicester, and Birmingham, where a minority of white British exist within those cities, and there are smaller cities as well, where this is the case. Um, the the overall figure of the white British in England and Wales is 75%, which is down from 80% in 10 years. And uh one in five people in in according to the 2023 census were born in a different country, uh, of which we've seen more arrive since then. So that figure will be higher. But in London, it's 41%, so two in five people were born in a different country. And to be to be clear, this is about understanding that it is not a um resistance to people just because they are different. It is a recognition that at that scale, different people equals different culture, equals different politics, equals different conceptions of history, equals different conceptions of what's valuable and what you might hold on to as a civilization, which is why so many people seem to be so concerned about this, but as you've already said, are not allowed to talk about it. And I think it it is fair to say that you can find corners of the internet who believe that's it, we're past the threshold, England is over, France is over. And if I may quote uh something uh from one of your essays, which I think demonstrates you do retain a kind of Christian hope that a victory, however we may call that, could be possible. Um you you wrote that peoples die hard. Ours has several times overshone itself capable of making a spectacular recovery. Nations are more resistant than merchants of available brain time would like. They have been known to rise from the grave. So, Monsieur Camus, we have talked about the disaster. I think people might have uh some conception of what that is now. Um, what hope do you see on the horizon, in your own country, perhaps, perhaps amongst the political class, if there is any, that the disaster may be overturned? Do you do you see any figures, any rising movements, whether it's Ressemblement National or Jordan Bardella or whoever else? Do you think that this is something the people in some way will make sure to avert? Or are you yet to see any promise within your the political discussion in your homeland?
SPEAKER_01Well, yes, there are signs uh which are have been often, I must say, disappointing, but they are still there, and uh the sol the situation can change any time. Um I am of course very much attached to that concept. Of decolonization, and I thought that this is the way we have to adopt because there is a question of law. Every action against genocide by replacement is against the law. The law and the judges, and not only the internal law, but the European law, since we are part of the European Union, and the international treaties. So only the idea of decolonization can deal with the question of law, because if a country decides to decolonize, it can't do with the law which has imposed colonization, with the colonial law when Algeria became independent from France. Of course, it was not going to respect the French law, and we can't use the law which is entirely the way of means of colonization. It is you know it's a the topos of of uh call the roman policier of a police story, of a police mystery, and also of tragedies in Sophocles, that the inspector, the one the detective, is the the guilty person. He doesn't know it, but he is like uh uh Oedipus, he turns he turns out that he is the one responsible for the disaster. But I think a modern writer of uh um police story or detective story should like find another criminal which would be uh more original, which would be the law. It is the law which is imposing uh colonization in French in all over Europe. So the the law would have to change, and there are of course very few parties which are ready to uh contest the law. For instance, if Le Rassemblem came to power under Ba de la more so than under Marine Le Pen, who has said that Islamism and well she calls it Islam, but it's the same thing, Islamism and the French Republic were perfectly compatible, so uh I have not much hope in an action, but maybe Bardela's might have different feelings. And any case, in any case, sometime a first revolution is the occasion of a second one, like in Russia in 1917. There was a sever uh February Revolution, a bourgeois revolution, which was an occasion for people to realize uh that something else could happen. And then there was the October Revolution, which was not uh a very happy consequence. I'm not giving that example as an image of a possible structure. I think if something happened like Trump, for instance, uh one cannot be uh a very ardent supporter of Donald Trump, but one has to recognise that he's uh making things change. And if something or somebody or someone make people uh tremble on their basis, on their settlement, it might open the way to something else, which what I would personally wish is a decolonial revolt like has happened everywhere in the world in the twentieth century, in Algeria, in Black Africa, in Indochina, in India, and it's not always uh violence. Many decolonization have happened without violence, and of course I would much rather avoid violence of my action is to try to avoid violence. I'm not against great replacement because I like violence. I am against great replacement because it brings violence everywhere and it is destroying civilization. And I'm not for decolonization because I want a war, I am for decolonization and remigration, which is the only means of decolonization. The two words are practically synonymous. Synonymous, yes. Uh it's because I think it's the only uh thing which can avoid a bloodbath.
SPEAKER_00Monsieur Camus, I know we have a few minutes left, and so before I let you go, I'd I'd firstly like to thank you so much for coming on and taking the time to talk with me. And I I know my subscriber base and beyond will be glad to hear you talk more freely about the enablers of what we have seen here in Europe. But before I let you go, I have one question that I ask all of my guests. And that question is is what have you changed your mind on during the course of your life that perhaps you thought was a universal truth? It was something that would never change. But then something changed in your mind and you began to think differently. And and why did you think differently?
SPEAKER_01Something on which it's changed my mind entirely. No, I I think I think more or less what I have always thought in my life. But on historical details, I may have changed my my my way of thinking. Yes, for instance, about you are too young to remember that, but uh the in the Yugoslavian uh question, I remember I was very much uh pro-Kosovo and very anti-Serbian, and I think that was a mistake because it was as if uh I was pro-independence of uh Alva Province in France, just because it had changed population when those regions were deeply Serbian. So this is one example on which I changed my mind, as might be a few others, but the men uh um pillars of my way of thinking are rather more evident to me than they were fifty or seventy years ago.
SPEAKER_00The the great benefit of time, being able to see things more clearly. Well, thank you for a fulsome discussion, and uh I I hope we get to speak in the future. You are still very um productive, should we say, with your your writings, and uh I will give you the opportunity to say to the viewers and listeners, if there's anything that you're working on soon to be published, or where people can find you on the internet if they'd like to follow your work.
SPEAKER_01Well, they can certainly find me in the internet since I have only uh literary and political existence on the internet, since I have been expelled from everywhere, from TV channels, from publishers, from uh uh official uh media, so I'm only for internet, and as you kindly mentioned, the latest book I publish in French and in English. I wrote it in English, so my English is slightly better when I write it, but but when I speak it, uh is called decolonization, which is the occasion to uh for apologies to people listening to us for my poor broken English, I think. I hope they can make something of it and uh understand a few of the words I'm mispronouncing.
SPEAKER_00I am sure they will be able to, and I'm sure French listeners and viewers who can watch this with subtitles will be very glad that I did not try to conduct this interview in French because I would still be trying to pal my way through the first question and tripping over every word. So um on that note, possibly move. Uh merci, thank you so much for coming on and for speaking to me in my own tongue, and perhaps one day I can I can learn yours and we can we can speak in French. Um but Joyeux Noël, Merry Christmas and uh a happy new year.
SPEAKER_01Merci beaucoup, Joyeux Noël, merci infiniment, c'était a very plaisir.
SPEAKER_00Merci, au revoir.
