According to David Betz, Professor of War in the Modern World at King’s College London, many of the preconditions for civil war exist in Britain today. Using academic studies on social cohesion, civil war causation theory and social attitudes surveys, he argues that the following preconditions are in place: elite overreach, factional polarisation, a collapse in trust, economic pressures, and the perceived downgrading of the majority population in a previously homogeneous society, are all present in contemporary Britain.
The current dynamics, he continues, point to an emerging conflict between radicalised factions within the Muslim community and an incipient nativist white nationalism. Professor Betz goes on to claim – using the Maoist model that divides insurgencies into three phases – that the nativists are in phase one, the so-called defensive phase in which the group begins to organise, disseminate propaganda and build a conscious community of followers.
Islamists, on the other hand, are in phase two – when violent attacks occur on a semi-regular basis, a military structure is being developed, but they are not yet strong enough to challenge the state’s monopoly on violence. (Professor Betz believes that, due to the absence of clear geographic divisions between the antagonists, Britain is unlikely to reach phase three – the offensive phase. This is when the insurgent groups are strong enough to challenge government forces.)
It is an arresting and troubling thesis. It is also convincing. The preconditions outlined above undeniably exist in modern Britain.
There has been a collapse of public trust in the state, for example. The 41st British Social Attitudes Survey (BSA) report, published on June 12th 2024, concluded “that people’s trust in governments and politicians, and confidence in their systems of government, is as low now as it has ever been over the last 50 years, if not lower”. Indeed, a record high of 45% “almost never” trust governments of any hue (22 points above the figure recorded in 2020); 58% (another record high) “almost never” trust politicians to tell the truth when they are in a tight corner, up 19 points on 2020; and a striking 79% of respondents said that the system of governing Britain could be improved “quite a lot” or a “great deal”, matching a record high recorded during the parliamentary stalemate over Brexit in 2019 and up 18 points on 2020.
Professor John Curtice, the Senior Research Fellow at the National Centre for Social Research, the organisation that carried out the BSA survey, says: “The Government… will… need to address the concerns of a public that is as doubtful as it has ever been about the trustworthiness and efficacy of the country’s system of government.” As Professors Curtice and Betz warn, public trust in governments of all stripes has collapsed and, with it, trust in the system of government that we have traditionally sacralised and encouraged others to adopt. That this trend, if left unchecked, could potentially shatter an already fragile social contract is a statement of the obvious. Trust in the state unites the disparate groups of a multicultural society, acting as what Professor Betz calls a kind of “superglue”. Without it, the groups fracture and retreat into silos characterised by mutual suspicion and animosity.
Although the BSA report does provide a chink of light, offering the possibility of a resurgence in trust – like the one seen in 2020 after the parliamentary shenanigans over Brexit were finally put to bed by Boris Johnson’s election victory – the signs are inauspicious. The post-Johnson resurgence was short-lived, eroded by more ‘elite overreach’ as he turbocharged immigration against the wishes of the electorate. What became known as the ‘Boris-wave’ was the final act of betrayal for a downtrodden populus reeling from a decade of broken promises.
Indeed, public trust has been eroded by elite arrogance – and such arrogance shows little sign of abating. Political elites are not only forcing mass immigration on a reluctant population; they are now actively discriminating against the white majority. The recruitment practices of our public services are a case in point. In the summer of 2023, a report found that the Royal Air Force was unlawfully discriminating against white men in a campaign aimed at boosting diversity; West Yorkshire Police recently placed a temporary block on hiring white British candidates for the same reason. In addition, a recent article in the Telegraph revealed that NHS trusts discriminate against white applicants by manipulating interview shortlists to favour ethnic minorities. Our irreproachable health service encourages what is known as the ‘Rooney Rule’ – a policy originating in American football that makes it mandatory for ethnic minorities to be shortlisted for interviews if they apply.
Furthermore, the toxic spectacle of two-tier policing is obvious to all but the most dyed-in-the-wool progressives. The contrast between the police’s uncompromising response to the white Southport rioters – in which they rightly used batons and shields against the aggressors – and their pusillanimous reaction to the Harehills Romani rioters – in which they ran away despite a bus being set on fire – was starkly demonstrative of a system that no longer treats its citizens as equal in the eyes of the law. Sir Keir Starmer took the knee in the wake of the violent Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests; he pressured judges to hand down custodial sentences to mothers who posted injudicious tweets during the Southport disturbances.
Guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and the College of Policing shamelessly highlights the current two-tier approach. It says there should be “equality of policing outcomes”, meaning to ensure “racial equity” not everyone should be treated the same. Apparently, policing should not be “colour blind”. The justification for anti-white racism is therefore spelt out in black and white – excuse the pun. No wonder the police attack white football fans trying to protect the Cenotaph whilst appeasing the Islamo-fascists who wish to deface it. No wonder they tolerate marauding Muslim gangs in Birmingham while deploying armoured battalions to deal with their white counterparts.
The white, native population is in the midst of an elite driven programme to downgrade their status in the United Kingdom – a phenomenon that Professor Betz cites as a precondition for civil war. That it could lead to a backlash by those being downgraded is self-evident.
Britain is already facing factional polarisation within some of its communities. Last year, four independent MPs were elected because of a religiously-inspired preoccupation with the Israel-Hamas war. Moreover, according to government figures, the UK has approximately 40,000 Islamists on the terror watchlist. Inter-communal violence has also been playing out on the streets of Birmingham between Hindus and Muslims, as well as on the streets of London between Eritreans and Ethiopians. If you add economic pressures into the mix – economic stagnation since 2008, an acute housing shortage, historically high taxation, private and public indebtedness and broken public services – and a resentful white majority (Southport witnessed the incipient convulsions of a native population that clearly feels besieged), a heady, explosive cocktail threatens to ignite the country.
Professor Betz is right. The preconditions for civil war do exist. Years of elite overreach have led to resentment and an alarming collapse of trust in our politicians, institutions, and political system, in addition to the increased polarisation of our ever-growing migrant communities – communities that find themselves, along with the native majority, in the eye of an approaching storm. Our elites must wake up before it’s too late!
Joe Baron is the pseudonym of a secondary school teacher. This piece was originally published on his Substack, which you can subscribe to here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.