Britain On The Brink?

The coming civil wars of the West will be characterized by disorganization, disunity, and general anarchy.

Source

The topic of civil war is still taboo in the sense it’s not something you discuss too openly, beyond trusted circles. Still, there’s no question it’s increasingly become less taboo to talk about during these last several years. Up until recently, it was also the refuge of fringe voices, individuals who may have big followings, but without access to broad, mainstream audiences, and have questionable reputations.

Louise Perry

took a big step towards further mainstreaming the topic, with her troubling, must-listen interview with Dr. David Betz. It’s a long one, like most podcast episodes, but it’s worth your time. It’s probably one of the most important podcast episodes you’ll end up listening to in 2025, so listen to it when you can.

The significance of this interview is in large part due to the fact Dr. Betz, as his title implies, isn’t some far-right survivalist hiding out in his bug-out spot, surfacing occasionally on the Internet to tell us how we’re all going to die. He’s not William Luther Pierce, writing a novel about a future race war in America. He’s instead Professor of War in the Modern World at King’s College London, one of the world’s oldest and most prestigious academic institutions. If anyone could convince the “normies” of how much danger the West is in, Dr. Betz is the man for the job. Not even Max can top someone like him in terms of gravitas.

If the interview is still too long for you to listen to, or if you simply don’t have time for it, the godly

Rod Dreher

summarized the main points of Betz’ thesis for all of us (though I’m a bit salty he beat me to the punch!).

Here are those points, followed by my commentary on it:

1. Civil war will not look like the American Civil War, with two armies faced off in conventional combat. Instead, it will be disorganized terrorist actions aimed at causing social collapse.

This has been a question which has been debated ad nauseum over the last several years, and I think a certain consensus has emerged where nobody really believes the next civil war in the West will look like the American Civil War, the Spanish Civil War, or the present-day Myanmar civil war, which has already cost the lives of almost 2,000 in 2025.

Whatever form it ultimately takes, I think Dr. Betz’ characterization is as good a framework as any. The coming civil wars of the West will be characterized by disorganization, disunity, and general anarchy. It makes sense, because the fact that things are becoming so disorderly and unpredictable is exactly why the West is headed towards civil war.

In some ways, we’re already in a civil war, but nobody knows it, because it’s one-sided. Look at what happened in Germany just last week:

Source

Since then, two people have died as a result.

In France:

Source

I didn’t realize throwing hand grenades inside bars was a thing in France. It sounds more like something that would’ve happened in Northern Ireland during The Troubles or in Lebanon during their nasty civil war.

Finally, look at what’s happening in Sweden these days. Again, this is Sweden:

BREAKING: There was yet another massive bombing attack in Stockholm tonight.

There was 32 bombings in January.

Since 2023 there has been over 300 bombings in Sweden.

These stories have become quite regular across Europe. How can anyone be blamed for thinking the continent is currently embroiled in a low-level, one-sided, civil war?

Renaud Camus, who developed the concept of the “Great Replacement,” once explained what the burgeoning internal conflicts of the West will look like:

“There have indeed been no rivers of blood but there have been many bloody attacks perpetrated by the occupier, hostages executed, in short, and above all, above all, there have been countless little streams, murders, rapes, forced confinements, kidnappings, and all this nocence, as I like to say, this relentless determination to harm, to trouble, to ruin life.”

Isn’t this an accurate description of what’s happening? It’s reasonable to think, one day, it’s all going to come to a head, but in the meantime, this is what we’re dealing with. It doesn’t register as a war to most people because, like a fight, a war requires the willing participation of two parties. This is central to Dr. Betz’ thesis: we are fast approaching a moment where this war will become less one-sided.

Next, Betz addresses a common argument made against predictions of civil war:

2. People who believe that we are too old, too rich, and too fat to have a civil war are wrong. They suffer from “normalcy bias”. This particularly effects ruling elites, whose sense of the state of the country is far removed from its reality.

I don’t think he’s wrong here. Normalcy bias is always a big problem and things are fine until they’re not. It’s what history in general has in common. That said, I also think there are hard and fast scientific realities that cannot be overcome. While being too old, too rich, and too fat won’t prevent violence from breaking out (I think real-world events across the West prove it), it does put a cap on how extensive violence can get.

Our friend KaiserBauch once pointed out studies showing that that countries where 55 percent of the population is over the age of 30 experience no internal conflict. I wish I had access to that source for verification, but I don’t have much reason to doubt the assertion. Older societies tend to be more stable and tranquil. The reason why the West has become increasingly less stable and tranquil is multifaceted, but one big one is mass immigration, which brings in large numbers of young people, especially young men, into our countries.

YouTuber “Black Pigeon” published a video a few weeks ago discussing the role that the gender imbalance is playing in the destabilization of the West. It’s only a dozen minutes long, so I hope you’ll make the time to watch this one, because he makes a very important argument for understanding the danger we’re in and how governments of the West are complicit in the destabilization of our societies.

There’s great cause for concern. However, the West overall still doesn’t have a surplus of young men like we see in the developing and under-developed worlds. As long as the proportion of young men relative to the overall population remains a minority, or at least not a plurality, I think the level of violence in the West will be more diffuse than not, more disorganized than not. It doesn’t change the level of danger, of course, only the character of it.

Despite being a man of academia, Betz has no problem saying what he really thinks about multiculturalism:

3. Multiculturalism has deeply fractured and polarized British society. Aside from ethnic and religious division, Britain today is far less connected to the shared myths that made it well-governed and relatively peaceful in the past.

You can say this about the West more broadly, America included. There’s really nothing which unites Americans beyond pursuit of the almighty dollar. Our countries are run like corporations; if someone isn’t performing, just bring in more people. If you don’t like your culture, just bring in other cultures. This is the essence of the Great Replacement.

Furthermore, all these different groups are forced to compete with one another for slices of the pie. Sure, the economy isn’t a zero-sum game, not exactly, but there’s also the law of diminishing returns. This is especially true in a place like America and Europe, where economic growth is driven almost entirely by consumer spending, state expenditure, and foreign investment.

In fact, Betz next makes that very point:

4. The UK economy is structurally weak, and on a steep downward trajectory, with no plausible rescue at the current moment, owing to its financialization.

But this isn’t an economic lesson. The fact is, societies all across the West are full of people who share no common story, no common destiny, and have very little sense of investment in one another. Following the cultural revolution of the 1960s, states all across the West had to craft a new narrative about who they were in hopes of maintaining tranquility between the cultures and races in an increasingly globalized world. As it turns out, you cannot forge unity by emphasizing our differences. It sounds like a good idea, but it doesn’t work in practice. Britain is the canary in the coal mine when it comes to the logical endpoint of promoting multiculturalism, which actually leads to parallel societies, often in direct conflict with one another.

Western states are suffering from a legitimacy crisis due to their inability or unwillingness to uphold their end of the social contract:

5. Britain today suffers from individual and group acts (e.g., terrorism, Pakistani Muslim rape gangs) that exacerbate the existing divisions. The rape gangs, in particular, undermine the legitimacy of the state in the eyes of many people, who perceive that the establishment allowed them to continue.

I’ve often made the remark that a state is legitimate as long as it can continue to bring violence to bear on the populace. The problem is that you cannot beat your population into submission forever. Another part of the problem is that states throughout the West don’t use the stick when it’s perfectly appropriate to do so, for example, against illegal immigrants, Pakistani Muslim rape gangs, and criminals in general.

Despite having no answer for the scourge of mass migration from the Third World, countries like Germany have no problem bringing the full force of the state down upon citizens for unapproved speech and thought crimes. Quite smugly, I might add.

Source

Anyone who thinks there’s a way to police speech without it being abused and exploited for political purposes ought to think very, very hard about it:

Source

It’s not a stretch to say Western states are waging war on their own people while allowing chaos and disorder to ravage their previously tranquil societies. Why they’d undermine their own legitimacy like this is truly bizarre, but it’s also a question for another time.

Betz echoes a point made by other scholars, which is that any time a transition in social power takes place, the risk of civil war spikes:

4. When you have a previous dominant population living through a loss of power and position — like white Britons are today — you have an explosive situation.

I can’t speak on Britain, since it’s not my country, but in America, Whites have already undergone a loss of power and position. Even as Whites do remain among the best off economically and in positions of power and prestige, this is owed more to them being a majority of the population, along with their previously dominant position, more than anything else. If anything, state policy has been geared specifically towards disenfranchising Whites in favor of non-Whites. It may not have been the intent, but it was certainly the effect. Following the Civil Rights Movement of the mid-20th century, Whites, if begrudgingly so, relinquished supremacy in the interest of social tranquility. It’s the only reason why we overcame the social instability of that era and created something resembling a peaceful, multiracial society.

The only thing left to do is the forcible taking of money and property from Whites, something we see on the verge of happening in South Africa. I hope to God we don’t see that happen here, but it cannot be ruled out either, especially if the Regime feels threatened and some real hard times hit the country. Keep in mind: many Whites are poor and many non-White groups are actually in much better shape, so there isn’t really any more “privilege” for Whites to relinquish.

Which brings me to my point: it’s the Left and Blacks, specifically, whose power and position is currently threatened. The Left with its supremacy within the institutions, Blacks with their supremacy within culture. The only way Whites can pose any kind of threat is if the Regime does try to take money and property from them, while the Left and Blacks are guaranteed to lash out, as they have demonstrated time and again, if their spot in the hierarchy is put at risk.

Currently, the efforts of the Trump administration and Elon Musk to curtail the power of the federal government is being met with fierce opposition from the Left and other groups with an interest in a powerful central administrative state. In general, cutting the federal government is highly controversial among the public, with Musk’s DOGE not courting majority support. It’s going to be anyone’s guess what the straw that breaks the camel’s back ends up being, but the Left and Black Americans’ loss of power and position will undoubtedly end up playing a big role. If a serious attempt by the Regime is made to strip Whites of the only thing they have left - their belongings and wealth - that’d likely play a major role in the outbreak of civil war, too.

Betz circles back to what the next civil war will look like:

5. If and when it kicks off, UK civil war is not likely to be organized, but will instead be a “volcanic” eruption from fed-up people.

6. It is very, very easy to cause mass disruption without much effort, or material. Plus, key parts of the infrastructure needed to ensure the smooth functioning of daily life (e.g., gas plants) are unguarded.

Again, I agree with his assessment. Demographics, specifically the aging of the population, means there won’t be a surplus of young men to create veritable armies out of. However, this only places a cap on the scale and scope of violence. The individual acts of violence can still be quite devastating.

Dr. Betz explains that the fed-up British, presumably opposed to the failed multicultural experiment, will resort to actions that’ll cause hardship to those they perceive as complicit. He specifically points out attacks on electrical power stations - this has been in a concern in America as well. You could also see a resort to protest - something similar to what the truckers did in Canada a few years ago.

In response, the state will attempt to crack down hard, as they often do in response, while further turning a blind eye to the bombings, mass shootings, vehicle ramming attacks, stabbings, the entire gamut of violence to be unleashed by the protected classes. As you might imagine, innocents will end up being disproportionately the victims.

For the most part, the native populations of the West have held their fire, attempting to hide or run from it all, but if foreign populations, with the aid of the state, refuse to leave them alone, someone at some point is going to fight back. In turn, that’ll trigger reciprocal violence. The use of the term “volcanic” suggests much of the violence is going to happen all at once or come in waves.

Betz doesn’t spare the Regime any criticism, pointing the finger directly at them, if not for creating this perilous situation, then undoubtedly doing everything imaginable to make things worse:

7. The problems did not start with the current UK Labour government, but the Starmer government is “hapless” in its dealings with problems destroying the people’s trust in the state (e.g., mass migration), and in fact is making things worse through wokeness, a politicized judiciary, two-tier policing and the like. That is to say, it is actively pursuing policies that undermine its legitimacy in the eyes of the population.

8. The ruling class’s idea that they can suppress people’s knowledge of these things by clamping down on social media is ludicrous. You can’t stop people from learning of and commenting on these events, and of the incompetence of the governing class in the face of economic pain and social breakdown.

Perhaps the biggest indictment against state legitimacy is that they’ve chosen to use their power to manage public sentiment or outright suppress dissent instead of trying to protect its citizenry. Their actions virtually guarantee an explosion of violence at some point down the line, and though they might feel mighty powerful today, if the situation spirals out of control, they’ll then suffer a legitimacy crisis that could lead to political collapse.

Betz explains how he thinks the line in the sand will be drawn:

9. The coming civil war will likely break along rural vs. urban lines. It wouldn’t take many rural people to cause catastrophic failures and chaos in cities by striking facilities, mostly located in the countryside, that cities need to function.

I think Britain is a place where a clear rural-urban divide can absolutely emerge. It’s not a physically large country, so you have a lot of people occupying a relatively small chunk of real estate, so there aren’t many places left to run to like in America. There’s less distance between rural and urban areas, while in America, people live miles and miles from the nearest major city. Proximity intensifies the likelihood of conflict.

London, as once the literal center of the world at the height of its empire, is a super-cosmopolitan city, rivaled only by New York. Yet most of Britain’s major cities, especially in England, have been swamped with foreigners as well. 17 percent of Birmingham’s residents are of Pakistani descent and almost a third are Muslim. This isn’t something you see even in the U.S. The rural areas truly are the only refuge from Britain’s Great Replacement, so you can bet when it pops off, the fed-up citizenry will attempt to protect rural areas from it, while disrupting the lives of cosmopolitan Britons and the foreign population as revenge for trying to make Britain less British.

Betz once again takes aim at the British power elite:

10. The UK establishment — politicians, judges, media, academics — are self-deluded about their own position, and the state of the country. “Normalcy bias.”

I’d include cosmopolitan Britons in the “establishment,” even those not in positions of power. You’re only as powerful as the amount of support you court within the public. It’s not to say cosmopolitan Britons aren’t concerned about things about immigration or have no problem with the Rotherdam rape gang scandal, but it’s to say they’re less likely to demand radical changes, since their lifestyles and status are derived from the status quo. A phenomenon you see throughout the West is that the conservatives tend to be more liberal-minded, while the radicals are actually the more reactionary side, a reversal of what we’ve seen in the past.

Betz says that many Britons are now looking for the exit, but they may discover that there isn’t really anywhere left to run to:

11. The most talented and capable young Britons have lost faith in their country’s future, and are now trying to emigrate. Trouble is, there really isn’t anywhere to escape to, as most Western countries are in the same position.

This, more than anything else, is what’s driving the West towards civil war. When avenues of escape are cut off, there’s only two things left to do: surrender, or fight. So far, it’s been surrender, unconditionally. There are many, however, who haven’t been forced to choose yet. There are many Britons who either cannot afford to or simply don’t want to leave the UK. And why should they? It’s their home. So what happens when a person decides to stay as their home is being surrounded by invaders? This isn’t complicated.

Another reason why “nothing ever happens,” aside from the aging of the population, is that there’s plenty of bread and circuses, to keep everyone, young men especially, distracted from what’s happening all around them:

12. Should the masses realize that their smartphones, porn, video games, etc., are drugging them into passivity, and put them down — they’re going to be enraged.

I honestly found this to be the most controversial aspect of his thesis. For the bread and circuses to no longer suffice, there would need to be a major, existential crisis threatening Britain to snap people back to reality. Typically, that sort of thing tends to be a war. But Betz is saying that a civil war will happen after everyone realizes the bread and circuses no longer work or run out. This says to me there’s going to be a preceding crisis which will “prime” British society for civil war. It’s something I’ve predicted will happen in America as well: a sudden political collapse, followed by a “quasi”-civil war that’ll drive a permanent wedge into society which can only be removed through either separation or war.

In fact, Betz says the coming British civil war will begin with a few years of “dirty war,” which is where the Regime will abuse the power of the state to go after political dissidents, before quickly metastasizing, in his words, into this rural-urban conflict, where the British patriots, as we’ll call them, will try to collapse the urban areas in retaliation. The way the British state is already going after dissidents shows they’re more than willing to engage in dirty war. As discontent intensifies, the British state could apply increasingly harsher means of showing the populace who’s boss. They used many of these means during The Troubles in their battle against the Irish Republican Army. At worst, they could empower communities like the Pakistani Muslims to carry out reprisals against dissidents. You can see how the situation can get out of control.

The question on everyone’s mind: when’s it all going to happen? Sooner than you think, according to the professor:

13. The situation is now “too far gone”; there isn’t much the government can do to stop it. Betz expects things to kick off within five years. “How many more child murders can the country handle before it loses it?”

The year 2030 appears to increasingly be a consensus year for when the West will reach a tipping point. Back in 2021, an active-duty French Army officer said he doesn’t expect his country will see a civil war prior to 2030, but most likely in the 20-year period thereafter. As an adherent of the Strauss-Howe theory of history, I’d say the 2033-to-’35 timeframe is when we can expect the risk of civil war to peak in America, though, again, the more-or-less permanent social divide will have manifested long before then.

I think another reason why 2030 is widely viewed as a pivotal year is because the world is undergoing a profound power realignment. As I’ve been saying since the I started this Substack, 2025 is the year the post-1945 U.S.-led global order effectively collapses. However, things aren’t going to completely unravel immediately. There’s going to be a period of at least a few years where everyone attempts to adjust to the new reality, but it’s during this period of adjustment where the risk of conflict rises, because everyone is trying to pick up the proverbial crown lying in the gutter. As I said before, once everyone realizes the old rules no longer apply, the even older rule of “might makes right” takes its rightful place.

Britain is headed civil war’s way, to say nothing of the West as a whole. What do we do? Like a good academic, Betz offers some good advice for both policymakers and the public:

1. The best the state can do now is come up with a plan to mitigate the damages, including make provision for the continuation of government services regionally, and protect important cultural artefacts.

Of course, this assumes the state is alert to the possibility of armed conflict. Unfortunately, as Betz also says, normalcy bias reigns. The state will most likely remain in denial until the body count starts to rise alarmingly. After all, it’ll at least be partially their fault a war broke out in the first place.

This is extremely good advice for individuals all across the West:

14. What can individuals do? Be healthy and fit. Prepare yourself psychologically for the possibility of civil war. Consider moving out of the cities now, or at least arrange a place in the country to escape to, if possible. Most of all: get to know your neighbors now. They will be your only defense once the police are gone.

15. You aren’t crazy or bad to be thinking and talking about this stuff now. Don’t let them shame you over your perfectly legitimate concerns.

Doesn’t this sound similar to something a certain someone said a time or two? Anyway, it’s kind of unsettling hearing Dr. Betz say all this, mostly because it’s not something you’re accustomed to hearing from an academic. In fact, it’s more like what you’d hear from a prepper/survivalist, but all that proves is how urgent the situation has become.

I think the best advice Betz gives is to prepare yourself psychologically and to get to know your neighbors today. Though he gives it five years, the reality is, it could happen any moment now. Don’t take this to mean that it’ll happen tomorrow, but take it to mean that you’re not going to have a say over when it happens. None of us had a say over when 9/11 happened, except the terrorists. Maybe it’ll happen by 2030, maybe it’ll never happen. The point is, the danger is there. Nobody’s saying drop everything and prepare to fight, but we are saying that civil war is something which needs to be factored into your life’s plan, insane as that might sound.

About getting to know your neighbors: the sobering fact is, once that line in the sand is drawn many of them may end up standing opposite of you. Still, get to know your neighbors and those you run into regularly. All you have to do is read the accounts of those who have lived through civil war: you won’t make it alone. The fact is, very few Americans, regardless of which side of the line they fall upon, don’t want a civil war, and have no interest in fighting one. See if there’s a way to make common cause with them, but keep away from extreme partisans on either side. They’re nothing but trouble.

Lastly, Betz is absolutely correct: nobody should be ashamed of considering civil war a likely scenario. I think we’re past the point of it being a fever dream and it’s now a very real possibility. The fact is, the West isn’t only proving completely impotent in its ability to deal with a multitude of crises, but it’s deliberately doing things to exacerbate them. The magnitude of the problem is such that it’s much too late to turn back now. Anyone who tells you there exists a political solution to what’s ultimately an existential crisis is selling you a false bill of goods. The best we can do now is to reach as many people within our orbit and convince them that our societies are in serious danger and to prepare themselves physically and psychologically for what’s to come.

The Crisis Of The 21st Century

Just an unbelievable story from the BBC:

Northern Ireland is the “least diverse” part of the UK, according to research published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The new report on international migration said that based on international migration only 3.4% of Northern Ireland's population (65,600 people) are from a minority ethnic group.

That compares to 18.3% in England and Wales and 12.9% in Scotland.

“While Northern Ireland has become a more diverse culture over the past two decades, it still remains the least diverse region of the UK,” the research said.

And? What exactly is the problem here? The story goes on to point out the higher prevalence of hate crimes in Northern Ireland. Okay, hate crimes are bad. But why does Northern Ireland need to reach the level of diversity in England, Wales, and Scotland? What’s so important about diversity that everywhere needs to be diversified?

The story cites a foreigner, an African immigrant, expressing people like him aren’t more prominently represented in the halls of power. Imagine thinking you should have political power in a different country just by virtue of showing up. It’s a pathology that not only seems most prominent among those from the Third World, but also afflicts only the West.

The BBC also reports what we all know: most migrants are young and male. Introducing large numbers of foreign young males into a relatively small space, with not a lot to go around, is a recipe for disaster. It always has been throughout history. Even if there were a lot to go around, does a country exist for the benefit of those who already live there? Or does it exist for those who want to show up?

It’s here that we see the great crisis, the great monster, of the 21st century. We have regimes, purportedly at the service of their countries, stopping at nothing to diversify their populations. They’re like an avenging force from Hell, relentlessly stopping at nothing to ensure all communities, White communities in particular, are forced to live with foreigners, often from vastly different cultures. The reason why is because it’s a form of suppressing a population. They suppress a populace by introducing a new group of people to displace and, ultimately, replace that populace. Then when that new populace starts getting too big for their britches, you displace and replace them, too. Rinse and repeat.

Luai Ahmed, a refugee from Yemen (a real refugee, not an economic migrant masquerading as one), explains how Sweden has been doing exactly this, then raises the question: if this is what they’re doing to their people, those who built Sweden and put the regime into power, today, then what’s to say they wouldn’t do it to the newcomers, one day?

Source

It’s a short video clip - less than two minutes long - so I hope you’ll watch it, along with the long-form interview it was cut from. When even foreigners notice that the Great Replacement is happening, shouldn’t we pay attention?

The crisis of the 21st century is also the result of regimes throughout the West forgetting that first and foremost, their responsibility is to their people, not the people of the whole world. It doesn’t matter the level of prosperity and security in society; all of it can be undone if the people in charge take their eyes off the road. We’re seeing that happen in real-time. We can believe that our lands are capable of integrating anyone and everyone, but this is undeniably false and everyone knows it. Humans are tribalistic by nature and are always in competition with one another, like most animals. Cooperation exists only when survival depends on it. To get people to cooperate even when their survival doesn’t depend on it, you need to teach them to do so. But not all cultures do, not in the way we do here in the West.

Dr. Gad Saad gets it. What he says right here is a core element of everything I believe in, why I believe what I do:

Two tribes on either side of the river: 1) Tribe A is infected with unequivocal pacifism. Nothing that you can do to Tribe A will ever get them to retaliate. Rape their women, rape their children, destroy their culture, enslave them. Nothing is more important than to adhere to pacifism; 2) Tribe B is astoundingly war-like and believes in its religious doctrines that the entire world and its spoils belong to its members.

Do you have to be a game theorist to play out the outcome?

Goodnight the West.

Many on the Left, many of them intellectuals, unfortunately, either won’t answer this question or they’ll come up with some convoluted answer for why Tribe A will prevail. Usually coming down to the fact they’re “better” or something like that. But we all know there’s only one answer.

Everyone knows Tribe B will crush Tribe A without remorse. Even then, many in the West are confused as to who exactly Tribe A or B is. Liberals and progressives see us as Tribe B, the regressive barbarians, while the Third World masses are Tribe A, peaceful progressives who knows a better way. It’s the only way they can justify bringing the entire world to our shores.

Eventually, the Great Replacement becomes something done entirely out of spite. Despite knowing that diversity brings about challenges (otherwise, what’s the point of cultural sensitivity?) they insist on never pumping the brakes, because they know it hurts the people they despise most. Progressives seldom have to deal with the downsides of immigration; it’s those in the middle-, working-, and lower-classes who do. These are also exactly those the people in charge throughout history have always sought to control, first by winning their support. Once they can no longer court their support, they’re targeted for replacement.

You get the idea. None of this should be news at this point. However, Dr. Betz’ well-informed warning should serve as the final wake-up call for how critical the situation has become. There’s no way to escape this without a conflict of some sort. History will one day damn the leaders who brought us to this point - Joe Biden, Keir Starmer, Angela Merkel, to name a few - but war criminals can only be held accountable after the guns have gone silent, unfortunately.

Like It Or Not, War Is Coming

I think all the West’s civil wars will follow a similar pattern: a deepening divide made permanent by a precipitating event which makes it clear a peaceful solution is no longer possible, a period of dirty war, where the respective regimes attempt to forcibly squash dissent in a last-ditch attempt to ram the Great Replacement through, followed by that volcanic eruption where native populations realize it’s past time to start swinging back.

Beyond that, who knows? We like to think the good guys will win in the end, but there’s also the possibility there may not be much of a country left to save when it’s all said and done. It’s a depressing thought, but we live in the real world and we don’t turn our eyes away from unpleasant things.

Perhaps the biggest psychological hurdle for any of us to overcome at this point is the realization that not only is war unavoidable at this point, trying to avoid it may not even be a good idea. The French Army officer interviewed back in 2021 after retired high-ranking officers penned a letter warning of civil war explained why trying to avoid a fight is, at this juncture, the equivalent of surrender.

He said:

I must point out that this is my biggest disagreement with the generals: they think that civil war must be avoided. I do not, as the vast majority of my fellow soldiers.

If there were a way to avoid war AND to solve the problem peacefully without concessions, I would of course support it. But I have explained why, in my eyes, the solution can no longer have a peaceful solution [ too many, for too long, with the help of too many ‘traitors’].

From there, wanting to avoid civil war at all costs, even though there is no peaceful solution, is de facto a capitulation a priori. That is to say that we are going to ask the French people to submit to the demands of the other side in order to try to satisfy our antagonists and avoid war...

The French officer distilled the crisis of the 21st century down to a simple question, one all of us in the West must answer, and do so honestly:

It is an absolutely colossal challenge, that of answering the question asked since 1945, and to which we have refused to answer until now: “Does a people have the right to have a nation that is at its exclusive service?”

It’s one’s answer to this question that’ll ultimately determine who ends up on which side of the coming wars.

Finally, he offers a message of hope, one echoed by Dr. Betz:

Prepare yourself, educate yourself, train yourself, toughen yourself, learn skills, marry someone, educate your children well, take care of your friends, act to become an example to the weakest and act to follow the example of the strongest.

Your blood boils with power, genius, glory and honor. And there is no greater honor for a man or a woman than to defend his or her blood by defending his or her territory. Be strong, be proud, be French.

None of us have to take up arms ourselves and hit the frontlines of the coming conflict. Most of us won’t. But we need to quit kidding ourselves by pretending like there’s any way through without a war, or that a war is totally unnecessary. It’s too late for that.

So yeah, if you’re French, be French. If you’re British, be British. If you’re American, be American. Be proud of it, let it be the foundation which points you to where to go.

Over to you. What are your thoughts on what Dr. David Betz had to say? Do you agree or disagree with his assessment? How do you see civil war unfolding where you live? Is there any way to avoid it at this point? Is it even worth it to try? Finally, how prepared are you?

Discuss in the comments section.

Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.

If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!