Professor David Betz of Kings College London wrote an essay, “Civil War Comes to the West”, which warned that the demographic composition of European countries, culturally fractured by mass immigration and a play-nice multiculturalism management strategy, has engineered the conditions preceding civil war along ethnic lines. Deteriorating economic conditions, and the ability for the internet to radicalise lone wolves into ideological packs, will leave bored, politically dispossessed young men with litle else to do except fight in the streets.
To conclude this section, it can be said that a generation ago all Western countries could still be described as to a large degree cohesive nations, each with a greater or lesser sense of common identity and heritage. By contrast, all now are incohesive political entities, jigsaw puzzles of competing identity-based tribes, living in large part in virtually segregated ‘communities’ competing over diminishing societal resources increasingly obviously and violently. Moreover, their economies are mired in a structural malaise leading, inevitably in the view of several knowledgeable observers to systemic collapse.
Over the last thirty years the West has preoccupied itself thanklessly in an expeditionary capacity in the invertebrate civil wars of others. It ought to have learned that it is impossible to maintain an integrated multi-valent society once neighbours start kidnapping each other’s children and murdering them with hand drills, blowing up each other’s cultural events, slaying each other’s teachers and religious leaders, and tearing down their icons. It is soberingly worth noting, moreover, that plenty of instances of all those things have occurred already in the West and all of them have occurred in France alone in the last five years.
Identity politics may be defined as politics in which people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group. It is overtly post-national. It is this above all that makes civil conflict in the West not merely likely but practically inevitable, in my view.
Is Civil War Inevitable?
This week, Louise Perry interviewed professor David Betz of Kings College London on her podcast, Maiden Mother Matriarch. So shocking were the contents, that Louise chose to publish the full discussion outside the paywall, for all to listen. I suggest you do.
In a new essay for Military Strategy Magazine, Professor Betz predicts an 18.5 percent chance that civil war occurs in Britain and/or France within five years.
In the first essay, I explained the reasons that this situation has arisen: a combination of culturally fractured societies, economic stagnation, elite overreach and a collapse of public confidence in the ability of normal politics to solve problems, and ultimately the realisation by anti-status quo groups of plausible strategies of attack based on systems disruption of vulnerable critical infrastructure.
Urban warfare has an 87 - 95 percent likelihood of happening in at least one of fifteen countries in Europe.
As for casualties, if we take Britain as an example, with a population of 70 million and assume levels of violence only as bad as the worst year of the Northern Ireland conflict (1971 with 500 deaths in a population of 1.5 million) then 23,300 killed per year would be expected. If we take the Bosnian War of the 1990s, or the more recent Syrian War as indicators we might hazard a guess that between one and four per cent of the pre-war population will be killed, with many times more that amount displaced.
Betz is explicit about the cause:
Western governments under increasing structural civilisational distress and having squandered their legitimacy are losing the ability to peacefully manage multicultural societies that are terminally fractured by ethnic identity politics. The initial result is an accelerating descent of multiple major cities into marginally ‘feral’ status as defined by Richard Norton in a 2003 essay in this way:
…a metropolis with a population of more than a million people in a state the government of which has lost the ability to maintain the rule of law within the city’s boundaries yet remains a functioning actor in the greater international system.
[…]
In 2003, the exemplary feral city according to Norton was Mogadishu, Somalia.
As of 2024, a list of global cities exhibiting some or all the characteristics of amber and red ferality, such as high levels of political corruption, negotiated areas of police control if not outright no-go zones, decaying industries, crumbling infrastructure, unsustainable debt, two-tier policing, and the burgeoning of private security, would include many in the West.
Turns out, if you import the third world, you recreate the third world. The passport gates of Heathrow and Gatwick do not cast an ineluctable spell over new arrivals, abluting them of tribal priors and transmuting them into being as British as you ‘un me.
I wish to say ‘No, you are not taking crazy pills’, the feeling you have had that something like this is going seriously wrong is right.
This will be exacerbated as the unwanted policy of mass immigration continues, and because the political consensus seems to take as a given that all those imported since 1997 and their children will remain in Britain.
has published new research in The Telegraph, showing that white Britons will be a minority in their own country by 2063.
The host population will decline from their present 73 percent of the population to 57 percent by 2050, and a minority of 34 percent by 2063.
The foreign-born and second-generation immigrant shar eof the population will increase from under 20 percent today, to 33.5 per cent within the next 25 years.
By 2100, 6 in 10 people in the UK will either have been born outside Britain, or be the child of immigrants.
The Muslim population will increase from a reported 7 percent in 2025, to 19 percent by 2100.
According to analysis I conducted with some anonymous data scientists, the share of under-24s among Muslim diasporas — Bangladesh (46%), Pakistan (44.8%) — is almost double (26.6%) that of white Britons.
When white Britons become a minority, will we be afforded the same “protected characteristic” status as aggrieved identity groups are at present, at our expense? Given the ethnic and historical grudges platformed on main-sewer media every day, I rather doubt it.
In Britain’s cities, a concoction of record immigration, population density, and “antiracist” policing practices has created Anarcho-tyranny along racial lines. The term, coined by Sam Francis, has been characterised by
as:a system of government that fails to protect its citizens from violence, while simultaneously persecuting conduct that would typically be regarded as innocent.
Anarcho-tyranny describes the unilateral suspension of law enforcement for demographics least likely to exercise impulse control and abide by the law; meanwhile, those most likely to be victimised by criminals bear the increasing costs of crime, and are forced to comply with speech restrictions passed to protect the state and its client groups.
The state then uses their permissiveness of violent crime as a pretext to expand their budget and surveillance powers, ostensibly to solve the problem that it caused. This has the dual purpose of rendering the law-abiding, tax-paying population dependent on the state to solve a problem it created, while also rendering the state impervious to criticism.
I wrote about this dynamic being a consequence of the false anthropology of liberalism in an essay for The European Conservative:
Per the Blank Slate, any relationship which produces a disparity can only be interpreted as the consequence of oppression. If a person commits a crime, they are treated as if culture or material conditions forced them to forget their free and equal nature. Therefore, criminal delinquency goes unpunished while law-abiding citizens get censored for hate speech if they notice the undesirable consequences. No reminder of human differences can be abided as we transition back to the state of nature. This dizzying double standard was called “anarcho-tyranny” by cancelled commentator Sam Francis. This is because terrified citizens request that the state intervene further to crack down on the criminals they gave carte blanche to in the first place. A choice has been made to create a criminal clientele class, whose predation on stable self-sustaining people manufactures consent for more state power.
The occupants of tent cities are the Last Men of liberalism. Dislocated from cultural expectations and social obligations, they are free to pursue hedonic pleasure in the space and using tools provided by the state. Complaining when one assaults you carries a greater penalty than the act of violence, because you are asserting a civilisational standard that inhibits their expression. Transgressing against the liberal dream, by drawing value distinctions between behaviours, or reminding anyone of differences between peoples, is the most heinous possible crime. If the Leviathan of international institutions gets its way, then every city will become an open-air crack den before the decade ends.
The policing of speech and permission of violence by select demographics under Anarcho-tyranny is conducted with the aim of ensuring equality. If only criminals were not antagonized with the pesky recognition that certain cultures and family structures produce more criminals than others, then we would all be peaceful and equal.
Simply put, the major cities are radically more diverse and have a growing mutually hostile political relationship with the country in which they are embedded.
Combined with the volatility of supply chains and vulnerability of infrastructure, it doesn’t require one to be a professor of war studies to see how the cultural forest floor is ready for ignition.
Putting these factors together allows one to outline the trajectory of the coming civil wars. First, the major cities become ungovernable, i.e., feral, exhausting the ability of the police even with military assistance to maintain civil order, while the broader perception of systemic political legitimacy plummets beyond recovery. The economy is crippled by metastasising intercommunal violence and consequent internal displacement. Second, these feral cities come to be seen by many of those indigenes of the titular nationality now living outside them as effectively having been lost to foreign occupation. They then directly attack the exposed city support systems with a view to causing their collapse through systemic failure.
However, as former government advisor
has written on Substack, our politicians, police officials, and intelligence services are too delusional to stop it.If you’re not in the meetings, you can’t accurately estimate the relative levels of dishonesty and self-delusion involved. Obviously there are officials and lawyers in the meetings who understand reality and are happy to feed ministerial delusions, as they did with Cameron, May, Boris and Sunak. And there are odd unusual officials who could bluntly tell the truth: PM, so there is no confusion, what you’re announcing cannot possible do what you claim. I know Sunak was super-delusional, not lying, only because I spoke to him in person twice. And of course many politicians develop weird super-position personalities, where they sort-of-know and sort-of-lie to themselves such than an impartial observer can rarely conclude either ‘they’re lying’ or ‘they’re deluded’: it’s a bit of both. It’s how many cope when promoted to jobs far beyond them. And it’s very poorly understood among business elites who always overrate the rationality of political players and underrate the prevalence of this super-position-personality phenomenon which means widespread avoidance of the real issues in meeting after meeting to an extent the median business elite has little experience of outside companies heading for bankruptcy. I suspect there’s more conscious dishonesty with Starmer than Sunak but the result is sure to be the same: political disaster.
Cummings explains that the British state is responding to this information with "propaganda operations with the old media to spread the meme that our ‘real danger’ is the ‘far right’ (code for ‘white people’)."
In No10 meetings with the Met on riots, I saw for myself a) the weird psychological zone of how much order rests not on actual physical forces but perceptions among a few elites about such forces that can very quickly change, and b) how scared the senior police are at the prospect of crucial psychological spells being broken.
The government, police, and intelligence services are trying to keep their illusion of control in place, gaslighting the British host majority, who are becoming acutely aware of their downgrading in status, while encouraging aggrieved ethnic identity politics among imported tribal minorities.
I would add to this equation that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies have caused — or at least, given cover for ethno-nepotistic hiring practices, which result in — the offices of state being packed to the rafters with ethnic minorities and Muslim activists, with nurtured hostilities toward the white British host majority.
For example, in the Home Office, a 700+ member Islamic Network works to “promote the recruitment, retention and progression of Muslim staff in the Home Office” and “influence policymakers so that policy is more inclusive of Muslim needs”. One civil servant told GB News that,
“Having an Islamic lobby group inside the Home Office represents a serious threat to the Government’s aims in combating Islamic extremism and granting asylum to those fleeing Islamic countries over religious persecution.”
After William Shawcross’ report was published — warning that Jihadist groups were reconfiguring the priorities of Prevent, and softening it against Islamist extremism — members of the Islamic Network attended a course called “Issues in Countering Terrorism” at King’s College London.
One civil servant “argued Prevent is inherently racist because it focuses on Islamist extremism” — before pointing and laughing at a jihadist in an ISIS recruitment video, saying, “He used to go to my school! I know him!”
The lecturer delivering the course described Shawcross as “the type of person who would say all current counter-terrorism professionals are woke… He is of that ilk”.
Last week, Christian Concern and Conservative Woman revealed that “Maria”, a pseudonymized Christian woman fleeing forced conversion in her home country, had her asylum application rejected by a member of the Islamic Network:
A female Muslim Home Office investigator rejected her claim, accused Maria of making it all up, and misinterpreted passages from various international reports and Home Office country reports to make it appear that Maria’s country was safe for Christians.
Within the Met Police, a member of the force’s London Muslim Communities Forum which “inform[s] and help[s] shape police policy and procedure at a strategic level” was found to have praised Hamas as “the master of the martyrs of the resistance” after October 7th, and expressed support for the now-proscribed group Hizb ut-Tahrir.
Kozbar’s praise of Hizb ut-Tahrir may help explain why, in response to a video of Hizb ut-Tahrir gathering after October 7th to call for “Muslim armies” to wage “Jihad” against the West, the Met Police obfuscated by saying on X, “The word jihad has a number of meanings”, and that they had “not identified any offences arising from the specific clip.”
In January, the Conservative government proscribed Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organisation, making belonging to or supporting the group a criminal offence. This had been attempted by the Conservatives back in 2007, while in opposition — but Keir Starmer, then-Director of Public Prosecutions, took it upon himself to submit an application to the European Court of Human Rights in June 2008 on Hizb ut-Tahrir’s behalf, saying “it is very important that everyone is represented”.
Will the ideologically stupified, infiltrated, anti-white British state side with its host majority over Muslim militias if civil war breaks out along ethnocultural lines?
Well, at least the head of MI6 has his priorities in order.
Share this post