Is Civil War Inevitable?
The British State is focusing efforts on containing public outrage over immigration policy, which could culminate in violent conflict between ethnic groups.
This week,
interviewed professor David Betz of Kings College London on her podcast, . So shocking were the contents, that Louise chose to publish the full discussion outside the paywall, for all to listen. I suggest you do.
Perry invited Betz onto the show after reading his article, ‘Civil War Comes to the West’, in Military Strategy Magazine. Betz 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. Betz also points to deteriorating economic conditions, and the ability for the internet to radicalise lone wolves into ideological packs, as compounding factors.
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.
Whereas the United States may have averted disaster with Donald Trump winning all branches of government and the popular vote, the nature of migration in Europe has meant politics is splitting along sectarian ethnic and religious lines. The unilateral empowerment of tribal minority grievances by “human rights” law will only deepen the resentment of host populations whose taxes pay for their own displacement — and who are insulted and incarcerated for the twentieth-century’s mortal sin of racism. Betz calls this “Downgrading”: where dominant groups experience “a situation of status reversal, not just political defeat.”
My episode of the
Podcast releases next week — and its contents connect to Betz’s episode in an unexpected way.In our upcoming conversation, Louise and I discussed the focus of my work over the last few years: namely how mass immigration, legal and illegal, from predominantly Muslim nations, of predominantly men aged 16 - 40, has costly economic, undesirable cultural, and dangerous criminal consequences.
All of this could be, retroactively, described as documenting the “Downgrading” of the indigenous host populations of the UK and Europe. By reporting stories that establishment, state-aligned media do not, I have in part prevented the unilateral disarmament of this group against cultural subversion. (And, in the event of unprovoked violence against the host majority, they might defend their families, rather than curl, fearing accusations of bigotry.)
This includes the story I helped break on GB News, where North African people-trafficking gangs marketed their wares using videos of British women, filmed without their consent, in states of drunkenness and undress, on Instagram. The Home Office were aware of this, and did nothing.
Likewise, I have reported consistently on the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs consistently over the years — with redoubled detail since joining
’s Courage Media.In a recent two-part series, I explored how the perpetrators’ Islamic faith, ethnic identity, and sense of clannish solidarity inspired their rape, torture, and murder of white working-class English girls.
There are an abundance of verses in Islamic scripture which psychopaths might cite to justify their predation on non-Muslim children. Indeed, the perpetrators recited verses from the Qur’an as they tortured the girls, deriving justification from their faith for their crimes. Women are subordinate to men: their testimony worth only half that of a man’s, and the punishment (Hudood) for sexual impropriety either a hundred lashes or death by stoning. Calls to violence against infidels can be found in the Qur’an and Hadiths, and through Muhammad’s declaration of war upon those who refused to submit to Allah in Medina. Mohammed himself took sex-slaves as the spoils of conquest; and Muslims are permitted to exploit them without ‘chastity’ in Surah Al-Mu’minun 23:5-6, Surah 33:50, and Surah 70:29-31.
He might look to Surah 65:4-5 to justify this, which sets forth protocol on marrying girls before they begin menstruation; or the Prophet’s marriage to Aisha, aged six, and consummation of said marriage when she reached nine. Hence why some girls were married to their rapists in traditional Islamic ceremonies. At one in Bradford, the girl’s social worker attended.
Dr Taj Hargey, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation and head of the Oxford Institute for British Islam, has long warned of Muslim men being taught to think it is acceptable to abuse English children. In 2013, Hargey wrote that the crimes of the Oxford gang were “bound up with religion and race”, and “deliberately targeted vulnerable white girls, whom they appeared to regard as ‘easy meat’, to use one of their revealing, racist phrases.” (These Oxford rapists will be released this year, having served their 12-year sentences — just as their crimes gain global attention.)
In mosques and madrassas, Hargey warns, men are taught that women are “second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority”.
This belief that outside the Ummah are unworthy of equal moral consideration is why many of the perpetrators remain remorseless. Some even regard the rapes as a form of Jihad: with one gang convicted in Rotherham in 2017 shouting “Allahu akbar” as they were lead out of court.
Racial hatred motivated the rape gangs too. Newcastle perpetrator Badrul Hussain, when caught travelling without a ticket on public transport, told the female ticket inspector, “All white women are only good for one thing. For men like me to … use like trash. That’s all women like you are worth”. Survivor Ella Hill has detailed how frequently she was denigrated a “white slag”, “white whore”, or “white c*nt.” Even police officers called the girls “little slags,” and said an “older Asian boyfriend” was a “fashion accessory” for girls in the Rotherham.
In 2013, Shabir Ahmed was convicted as the ringleader of a Rochdale rape gang. During his trial at Liverpool Crown Court, he insisted his prosecution was proof of a conspiracy against Muslims. He denied all charges, saying “It’s all white lies.” During proceedings, Ahmed launched into a number of anti-white rants:
“We are a civilised society. We are the supreme race, not these white b******s (pointing to police officers in court).”
He continued: “You will not get a CBE. You will not get an MBE. You will get a DM, a destroyer of Muslims. You were born one thousand years too late. You f***ed my community.. You destroyed my community and our children. None of us did that. White people trained those girls to be so much advanced in sex. They were coming without hesitation to Rochdale,Oldham, Bradford, Leeds and Nelson and wherever.”
He said the jury in Liverpool has been ‘taking instructions’ from BNP leader Nick Griffin and later pointed to Rachel Smith, who prosecuted both cases on behalf of the Crown, saying: “I curse you at night. I curse you and your family. You will understand (pointing at Judge Khokhar). I curse the juries. I curse the media and most of you b******s. Your family will get it. You have destroyed our community… Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Maggie Thatcher. They are all the same. They’re all on the take. They (looking at the police) are on the take. It’s true. They are all bent b******s. It has to be taken by average people like you and I. They take all the money and we take all the weight. These (pointing at the police officers) were p****d on by Theresa May. May you be more p****d on.”
Ahmed smiled as he was sentenced.
Laura Wilson’s murder may be a useful case study for those still struggling to comprehend the racial and religious motive of these gangs. Wilson was stabbed to death and dumped in a canal by 17-year-old Ashtiaq Asghar, whose parents racially berated her when they found out. The day before her death, Ashitaq texted 22-year-old Ishaq Hussain, the Wilson’s four-month-old child, “gonna send that kuffar b*tch straight to Hell”. At Asghar’s sentencing, the judge said Hussain has indoctrinated him “into [a] mindset [which] regarded girls, white girls, simply as sexual targets”. Wilson’s sister, Sarah was raped aged 11 in a school playground aged 11. When her mother showed her phone to police officers, it contained the numbers of 177 “Asian” men. The police refused to investigate, and called Sarah’s abuse her “lifestyle choice”.
The handful of courageous British Muslims who risked their lives to raise awareness of this issue did not have the support of their community. The uncomfortable truth is that many in Muslim communities and Pakistani enclaves knew what their brothers, husbands, fathers, sons, and cousins were doing, and helped cover it up. Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, whose three cousins were jailed as part of the Rotherham grooming gang trials, said that “The sad reality is that in the case of on-street gang grooming, there is an over-representation of Pakistani men”, but explained how “any of us who try to tackle this problem [are seen] as siding with the white ‘enemy’”.
“today a small, but significant, minority of Pakistani men think in precisely the same warped way the Hussain brothers did: that white women are fair game; that they are entitled to satisfy their desires in whatever way they see fit. …
The root cause lies in the British Pakistani community itself. The sad truth is that for years some British Pakistanis have deliberately buried their heads in the sand about these predatory grooming gangs. …
They weren’t ‘lone groomers’; misfits on the outskirts of our group. They were at its heart. …
And like all the other Pakistani grooming gangs I have investigated in the past nine years, they lived a double life — one tacitly supported by those close to them.”
This asabiyah — clannish mentality — of Britain’s Pakistani enclaves prevents word of the abuse from getting out. Whistleblowers are discouraged with the fear of bringing collective shame on their family and community. This is why, as the Muslim Women’s Network has identified, Muslim girls abused by their families are also silenced. It is also entrenched by the majority of Pakistanis in Britain being from from the Mirpur District in Azad Kashmir. When Professor Roger Ballard polled Pakistanis in 1987, he found 75 percent could trace their ancestry to the same 600 square miles. This is what Kemi Badenoch meant by saying perpetrators come from “sub-communities” and a “peasant background”.
This may also explain why the families of the rapists covered up their brothers, fathers, sons, and cousins’ crimes — and continue to stand by them, even when they are convicted. At a sentencing hearing in Rotherham in 2024, relatives of the rapists were “dead eyeing” a victim in court, with one instructing another to “slap the b***h” — causing National Crime Agency officers and court security to intervene. When child rapist Mohammed Siyab’s sentence was read out by the judge, one of his daughters cried out “I love you dad!”
You can read the rest of the articles on Courage Media here and here.
These atrocities, rather than being a reason to avert course on building a Tower of Babel, are the casus belli for the British state to wage psychological warfare against their aggrieved citizens. As I have written for Courage, the Home Office has an in-house propaganda unit, RICU, which also happens to be the parent body of counter-extremism programme Prevent.
Last year, RICU produced a report — elements of which were leaked, and reported on by myself and Steven Edginton in November — which dismissed two-tier policing and the rape gangs scandal as “grievance narratives” invented whole cloth by “right-wing extremists”.
With new revelations from this document, in a publication by Policy Exchange, I reported on the history of RICU, and the ideological capture of the British state by diversity legislation and Islamic activists, for Courage Media.
Among these narratives were “anti-communism”, “Cultural Nationalism”, and believing that “Western culture is under threat from mass migration”. The rape gangs, which continue to ruin the childhoods of thousands of girls in fifty towns and cities in the UK, were dismissed as a “grievance narrative” invented by “right-wing extremists”:
“right wing extremists frequently exploit cases of alleged group-based sexual abuse to promote anti-Muslim sentiment as well as anti-government and anti-‘political correctness’ narratives”
The full documents have since been procured by Policy Exchange, and new details published in January revealed the extent to which the government has been gaslighting the British public. Here’s how the UK’s ministry of propaganda was ideologically captured by Muslim activists.
The report, titled “CounterExtremism Sprint: Understand”, was jointly authored by Prevent, RICU, and Homeland Security Analysis and Insight (HSAI). It covers nine types of extremism, in the following order:
Islamist extremism
Extreme right-wing
Extreme misogyny
Pro-Khalistan extremism (Sikh separatism)
Hindu nationalist extremism (Hindutva)
Environmental extremism
Left-wing extremism
Anarchist and single-issue extremism (LASI)
“Violence fascination”
“Conspiracy theories”
The breadth of the report indicates that Prevent doesn’t have its priorities right. As Policy Exchange authors Andrew GIlligan and Dr. Paul Stott remind us, Islamists are responsible for 94% of all deaths and 88% of injuries caused by terrorism since 1999; and comprise 80% of Counter-Terror Police and 75% of MI5’s open caseload, and 63% of terrorists in custody. Only 10% of Counter-Terror Police and 25% of MI5’s open caseload are “Far Right” extremists — a term redefined beyond recognition in recent years. However, the Prevent document only dedicates one page to Islamist extremism — the same as to “conspiracy theories,” Sikh separatism, misogyny, and environmentalism.
Only 160 words were dedicated to the sole case Islamist study of Anjem Choudary’s al-Muhajiroun: which had proven links to 25% of all convicted Islamist terrorists in the UK, by 2016. Neither the 2017 or 2019 London Bridge attacks were mentioned, despite being committed by al-Muhajiroun supporters. Choudary was finally imprisoned for life, for directing a terrorist organisation, belonging to a proscribed organisation, and encouraging support for a terrorist organisation, on the 23rd of July 2024. His is the only case of a conviction in the UK for Da’wah — ideological laundering of Islamist ideas, which inspires, but never actually commits, terrorist violence. This took decades, and Choudary was allowed to rebrand with multiple activist organisations, all while advocating for Jihad, the conversion of British monuments into mosques, and calling for the execution of Pope Benedict XVI.
More words (320) are spent on “Punish a Muslim Day”, which activist organisation Tell Mama report only resulted in one incident of school bullying. Prevent staff spent more time subdividing the “Manosphere” into Men’s Rights Activists, Pick-Up Artists (PUAs), and involuntary celibates (or incels) than on identifying Islamist extremists.
Sir William Shawcross warned in his Independent Review in 2023 that, although “Islamist terrorism is currently the largest terrorist threat facing the United Kingdom […] Prevent is not doing enough to counter non-violent Islamist extremism”. Between 2015 and 2019, referrals for Islamist extremism plummeted. Only 22% of Prevent referrals between 2020 and 2021 were for Islmaist extremism; outnumbered by “right-wing extremism” at 25%. The most were for “Mixed, unstable, or unclear ideology.” Today, the largest number of referrals (36%) are for the nebulous category “vulnerability present with no ideology or counter-terrorism risk”.
Shawcross said that Prevent staff were unwilling to consider Islam as a motivator of terrorism and extremist violence:
“When discussing Islamism, Prevent staff frequently came back to issues relating to mental health concerns and ‘vulnerabilities’. Ideology, if acknowledged at all, was treated as a secondary factor and a derivative of a wider psychological or social issue. Put simply, ideology was not seen as an essential part of the trajectory towards terrorism, instead it was viewed as one of many potential radicalising factors.”
Why are Prevent so resistant to record Islamist extremism? Shawcross had warned that Jihadist groups were reconfiguring the priorities of Prevent, and softening it against Islamist extremism. He blamed proscribed group Hizb ut-Tahrir for a successful lobbying campaign since 2008. But this could only be possible if they had sympathisers setting Prevent policy from inside the Home Office. This was the case with Mohammed Kozbar, a member of the force’s London Muslim Communities Forum, who praised Hamas as “the master of the martyrs of the resistance” after October 7th.
According to whistleblowers, the Home Office has been hijacked by a 700-member Islamic Network who “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 the Shawcross report was published, 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”.
Perhaps the growth of this network has been influenced by the appointment of Muslims to positions of power within the Home Office. The current Director General for Immigration Enforcement, Bas Javid, is the son of Pakistani immigrants, and brother of former Home Secretary Sajid Javid. Likewise, the former government Counter-Extremism Commissioner, and Independent Adviser for Social Cohesion and Resilience, Dame Sara Khan, is the sister of the former Deputy Head of RICU, Sabrina Khan. Sabrina’s boss, Richard Chalk, was also chief of staff to former chairwoman of the Conservative Party, now Treasurer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi. These hires may not be a result of ethnic, familial, or religious nepotism — but Prevent’s failings make it difficult to argue any of these people have done a good job.
You can read the rest of the essay here.
Keir Starmer is also responding to his government’s subterranean approval numbers by forming an Islamophobia blasphemy council to silence conversations about the rape gangs scandal.
The definition of Islamophobia that the council is likely to use is the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims’, which reads:
“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
Despite the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Faith, Communities and Resettlement, Lord Khan, conceding that the definition “proposed by the APPG is not in line with the Equality Act 2010, which defines race in terms of colour, nationality and national or ethnic origins”, the government seem set on adopting it anyway.
Council members may include former Conservative MP Dominic Grieve, who broke a Whitehall engagement ban by attending a Muslim Council of Britain Awards Ceremony in 2011; and Qari Asim, an imam and trustee of HOPE Not Hate, who was removed from his role as deputy chair of the government’s Anti-Muslim Hatred Working Group, after supporting protests against the film The Lady of Heaven.
Both appointments suggest the use of the APPG definition, as Grieve also provided the foreword to the report which debuted the definition, and HOPE Not Hate conducted the Birmingham focus groups for the APPG’s report.
I wrote about the prospective blasphemy council in detail for Courage Media.
Other groups involved in crafting the APPG definition include the Runnymede Trust, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND), and the National Union of Students (NUS). The Runnymede Trust is infamous for having introduced the term to British politics in 1997 — after it was first invented by the Muslim Brotherhood to invoke taboos around homophobia and the Holocaust, and silence critics of Islam. Both Ayaan Hirsi Ali and myself have written about how the MCB was established by the Muslim Brotherhood; how they were banned from government engagement after their Deputy Director-General, Dr Daud Abdullah signed the Istanbul Declaration, interpreted as a jihad against the British Navy, in 2009; and how their former deputy secretary-general, Mohammed Kozbar praised Hamas’s founder as “the master of the martyrs of the resistance”. MEND, too, criticised the government as “anti-democratic” for proscribing Jihadist group Hizb ut-Tahrir in January 2024; after they called for “Jihad” and “Muslim armies” to rise up following October 7th.
In 2005, three Jewish students resigned from the NUS Steering Committee after being met with hostility for criticising Hizb ut-Tahrir. In 2022, the former Conservative government cut funding for the NUS over allegations of antisemitism. A 2023 report confirmed pro-Palestinain activism by NUS members led to “antisemitism as well as hostility towards Jews which has not been challenged sufficiently robustly or proactively by NUS.” So the APPG definition was written by a number of Muslim activists, who have unsavoury ties to Jihadist groups, and exhibit a number of bigotries of their own. Nonetheless, Keir Starmer seems set on keeping his promise to London Mayor Sadiq Khan: to apply his experience as a prosecutor to pursue a “zero tolerance approach” to Islamophobia.
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner will chair the new sixteen-member council. Before the 2024 election, Rayner was recorded pleading with men in an Ashton-under-Lyne mosque to vote Labour, by promising to prioritise a ceasefire in Gaza in the next Parliament. A number of cabinet ministers almost lost their seats to “independent” Muslim MPs, running on a single-issue ticket of a ceasefire in Gaza. A cynic might say Rayner’s interest in this council is a purely expedient attempt to consolidate the Muslim vote, and save her colleagues’ careers. After all, when asked to define Islamophobia last September, by Reform MP Lee Anderson, Rayner failed — despite repeatedly promising to “root it out”. Health Secretary and Brutus-in-waiting, Wes Streeting might be help, given he wrote the APPG definition. Streeting staved off a Muslim independent challenge to his seat by only 528 votes — which might why, as a gay man, he is so interested in insulating Islam from criticism.
Perhaps Rayner had forgotten that, while serving as shadow Education Secretary under Jeremy Corbyn, her Labour party formally adopted the APPG definition. She chose to retain the definition while Chair of the Labour Party between 2020 – 2021, and while serving as Deputy Leader of the Opposition from 2020 – 2024. Support for the APPG definition is still on Labour’s website. Surely, Rayner must know what Islamophobia means, since she has promised to eradicate it for six years? Rayner is also proposing a council on anti-Semitism, but she may have a harder time defining that, given she was happy to serve in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet for four years.
Even if this definition is not adopted, Britain already has a de facto blasphemy law in place. In the manifesto that Rayner campaigned on, Labour promised to “reverse the Conservatives’ decision to downgrade the monitoring of antisemitic and Islamophobic hate.” As the Home Secretary has since announced, this means the police recording more non-crime hate incidents against school-kids, vicars, and other members of the public, in an effort to prove their antiracist credentials. Using the Public Order Act (1986), the police have enforced Sharia-style standards of criminalising causing offence against Muslims. The threat of random Jihadist violence, and persecution by one’s own government, produces a chilling effect on lawful criticism of Islam.
You can read the rest of the essay here.
Whether through ideological capture, or careerist cowardice, Britain’s government and civil service have capitulated to the demands of censorious Islamist activists. They criminalise Quran burnings, while ignoring Islamist terrorists.
In light of Betz’s interview with
, I now see RICU’s operations, and Labour’s proposed Islamophobia board, as a desperate attempt to keep a lid on the sputtering pot of public sentiment. These censorship and narrative control efforts are to prevent vigilante groups belonging to the host majority from attacking critical infrastructure, or picking fights with members of hostile minorities, to incite a broader civil war.This might explain all the “Far Right” predictive programming in Britain’s soaps for the last two years — with Coronation Street being the worst offender. I covered their storyline about teen Max being radicalised by a white nationalist YouTuber, who spent his spare hours randomly attacking refugee children, two years ago on LotusEaters.com. (Clips of which I have embedded here, for posterity.)
We would all like to avert a nationwide violent conflict. However, as cultural differences prove intractable, it would appear that only ceasing the failed policy of multiculturalism, and reversing mass immigration, is the only way to do so. Yet entrenched minority-identity activists in the state will do anything but that. Instead, the plan seems to be increasingly criminalising the complaints of the recalcitrant natives. This is an unsustainable, undesirable state of affairs, which will only end in tears.
Nevertheless, some self-styled conservatives are content to play Kappo and cooperate with the state in its gaslighting operation. Upon news that a third of babies born in Britain last year were to immigrant mothers, former Spectator editor Fraser Nelson wrote that this was “good news”, and provided the UK “an exemption from the politics of human shortage.” The fact that the name Muhammed is now the most popular in England — and that this can be taken as a proxy for unprecedented cultural change — did not seem to trouble him.
Nelson argues that,
“Only one major European nation is forecast to escape decline. The good news was confirmed this week — except no one, anywhere, saw it as good news. A third of this country’s babies are now born to immigrant mums, says the Office for National Statistics. New arrivals will make sure our working-age population growth proceeds at the normal, healthy pace. But the idea of 5 million more working-age Brits by 2050 has been treated as a kind of self-invasion, a crisis that our islands might not survive.”
What Nelson means by “decline”, or indeed by “working-age Brits”, begs many questions. He appears to think that if the raw population figures of Britain continue to rise, this is “good news”. Nelson admits that “Demography is destiny”, but fails to understand it is a qualitative, not a quantitative statement.
Considering pro-natalist measures proposed by the likes of Miriam Cates, and immigration restrictions which have put Reform UK at the top of every poll, Nelson writes: “even if all of this is done, we’d still need mass migration — to keep the working-age population growing in spite of our low (and declining) birthrate.” It was telling that Nelson deleted a tweet which called this a growth in the population of “Britain’s workforce”, and replaced it with “working-age population”. Because the truth is: they aren’t working. Only 15 percent of post-Brexit migrants came principally to work. Of those on skilled worker visas, the OBR admitted that 60 percent make less than the median British salary. (Both the Centre for Policy Studies and Centre for Migration Control estimate more than 70 percent.) 50 percent of “skilled workers” earn less than half the average salary — costing British taxpayers £151,000 each by the time they retire. If they live to life expectancy (81), they cost £465,000 each; and over £1 million by age 100. Karl Williams of the Centre for Policy Studies calculated that only 5 percent of visas issued in 2022 – 2023 were to likely tax-contributors — meaning 95 percent of migrants are net-dependents. For every £1 paid to the Treasury in tax by these high-earning immigrants, the more numerous net-dependents take out £1.60.
This modelling presumes these low-wage migrants arrive at age 25; but studies from Denmark and the Netherlands show second-generation non-EU/East-Asian immigrants repeat the economic patterns of their parents and are, on average, never net tax contributors either, while costing more through state-funded healthcare and education. They are also more likely to commit more crimes than Western Europeans, North Americans, East Asians, and native Brits. This is the population that Nelson is celebrating an increase of as “good news”.
And none of these economic concerns address the cultural issues that Nelson repeatedly marginalises and minimises. The mistake Nelson makes is thinking these forecast five million births to immigrant mothers are automatically British by virtue of being born in Britain. To Nelson, anyone born on the landmass of the United Kingdom is as indistinguishably British as those whose lineage can be traced back to Hengist and Horsa. This misconception is clear in how fluidly Nelson moves between calling these second-generation immigrants “working-age Brits”, and describing them as “an exemption from the politics of human shortage.” Human beings are not an undifferentiated mass, or fungible, swappable units. We are not widgets in a well-oiled machine. We are not purely driven by economic incentives, or resources to be redistributed to balance a spreadsheet.
There is more to being of a place than simply having paper-citizenship or in gainful employment. People are members of a people. They are custodians of culture: the customs, traditions, and stories of a people, in a place, over time. We know cultures are the properties of peoples, because even civic nationalists apply a nationally-particular prefix to cultures. (e.g. “British values”) People think of themselves as belonging to the civilisation of their ancestors, which generated this culture — which is why many second-and-third generation immigrants are less patriotic toward their adopted country than their first-generation parents. Nations are tribes, formed of families with common religion and ancestry, who defend the civilisation built by their forebears, and who feel the weight of passing on that inheritance to their children. They are not, as Kemi Badenoch seems to believe, “a project” which can be tinkered with by any technocrat with a passing interest in optimising for efficiency.
Immigrants understand this. Mohammed is now the number one baby name in England. To peoples with more potent religious convictions than those of the secularised West, this demonstrates piety and a commitment to spread their faith and culture across generations. Demographic change is a reliable proxy for imminent cultural change. The “problem with integration” Nelson notes in “parts of Blackburn, Oldham and Bradford that are 90 per cent Muslim” are all but guaranteed to be recreated by the birthrate trends he also praises. Therefore, if you find yourself asking, “Will this nation of Mohammeds abide by ‘British values’?”, you have either completely lost touch with reality, or are willfully denying the problem. (An observation which got me blocked by Nelson.)
You can read the rest of the essay here.
Betz notes that the city's infrastructure, which attracts a disproportionate amount of these imported sources of potential ethnic strife, has a built-in surveillance infrastructure. The state has been convinced that this is a way to ensure security in low-trust environments.
I wrote about the surveillance state as the enabling condition for atomistic Liberalism last year for The European Conservative, after visiting the epicentre of “Weirdness”, Austin Texas:
Cities in America provide a model for this truly “open” society. By insisting on retaining its WEIRD-ness, Austin, Texas, is replete with features to which most Brits would object. Since the COVID lockdowns, the skyscrapers of America’s cosmopoles are empty. Their corporations’ replaceable spreadsheet fabricators scarcely leave their overpriced studio-apartment-come-office-cubilces. Vacant benches and building doorways have become de facto hostels for the growing homeless population. Drug addicts, itchy with withdrawal, shamble along the sidewalks in soiled pyjamas. People pass them by, paying no more mind to their incoherent shouting than to birdsong.
Since 2018, shoplifting in Austin carries no risk of arrest. The problem worsened following the 2020s BLM riots, when the city’s police department was defunded by $150m. Now, essential goods like soap, deodorant, and disposable razors are locked behind glass cases in Target and CVS. The insurance industry—one of the largest lobbying bodies—ensures low-level criminality is too profitable for authorities to prevent. Law-abiding citizens suffer the same suspicious treatment as the thieving vagrants that local politicians have enabled.
This low-trust landscape is watched by six CCTV cameras per thousand people. Why does the state grow its surveillance apparatus in tandem to growing its tolerance of criminal delinquency? As Patrick Deneen has observed, the scope of the state expands in proportion to social obligations receding. Concentric circles of faith, family, community, congregation, tribe, nation, historical belonging, and cultural affiliation create a Russian nesting doll of identity which shields men from fear of, or perceived dependence upon, state tyranny. But the anthropology of liberal philosophy creates an antagonistic relationship between nature and culture—compelling the state to intervene to ensure man’s freedom from social and civilisational expectations.
Liberal philosophers hypothesised that a state of nature predated civilisation, both Locke and Rousseau envisioning man living in “perfect freedom [and] equality.” Locke believed men rationally surrendered this state to form a government to protect property, manage scarcity, and seek prosperity. Rousseau believed this process was akin to a biblical Fall, and seeked to return to Eden by eliminating material inequality. Hobbes believed the state of nature was one in which life was bound to be “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” and that the state exists to prevent the “War of every man against every man.” In all conceptions, man has been pried away from nature by culture and the nation state, and so the desire is created to rationally order society to return him to “perfect freedom [and] equality.” Doing so requires the state to monitor every relationship, and interfere when an individual’s ability to express themselves is limited by the actions or expectations of others. This includes reducing the burdens placed upon the conscience of individuals by family, faith, culture, history, and material reality. Dislodging us from these meaningful domains of constraint makes us anew as Camus’ “antiracist man”: existing as if ex nihilo, veiled by ignorance, naked before whatever ideology the state promotes and embodies.
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.
You can read the rest of the essay here.
But Betz notes, in the interview, that this infrastructure too can be attacked — taken offline by sabotaging the power grid, or, as Louise mentions, the cameras themselves can be smashed and stolen (a la London’s ULEZ Blade-Runners.)
So Betz is predicting our clod-eared Anywhere political class will continue to press the lid down on the sputtering pot of the country, while social trust deteriorates and the economy enters recession.
Economist Philip Pilkington would concur: as he explained to me on Tomlinson Talks this week, the Bank of England and Office for Budget Responsibility modelling does not allow for a deviation from the high-spend, big-debt, mass immigration economy. A combination of a false anthropology of indistinguishable equality between all people, and unfunded entitlements baked into the business of state by legislation, means that Britain is on-rails toward a sovereign debt crisis.
So, further censorship of the irate British public, plus a deteriorating quality of life, all the while taxes are increased to be spent on social housing and asylum accommodation for migrants legal and illegal alike? Sounds like a guaranteed recipe for ethnic resentment — something I would rather avoid.
But Betz is not optimistic. As he wrote in his Military Strategy Magazine essay:
Accepting this, even as something of a pessimistic baseline, would suggest over the coming decade the collective West is in deep trouble. Moreover, there is little reason to hope that should one kick off in one major country its consequences would not spread more widely to others.
Moreover, it is not simply that the conditions are present in the West; it is, rather, that the conditions are nearing the ideal. The relative wealth, social stability and related lack of demographic factionalism, plus the perception of the ability of normal politics to solve problems that once made the West seem immune to civil war are now no longer valid. In fact, in each of these categories the direction of pull is towards civil conflict. Increasingly, people perceive this to be the case and their levels of confidence in government would seem to be declining even more in the face of the apparent unwillingness or inability of leaders to confront the situation honestly.
The result, society-wise, is a reinforcing spiral calling to mind the opening lines of Yeats’ famous ‘The Second Coming’.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold…The fact of the matter is that the tools of revolt in the form of various appurtenances of modern life are just lying around, knowledge of how to employ them is widespread, targets are obvious and undefended, and more and more formerly regular citizens seem minded to take the shot.
I can only hope my continued reporting on these issues raises consciousness of just how dire our straits and late our hour is.