Comfort Could Prevent Civil War. It Could Also Destroy Us.

Only after a major structural collapse, only when comfort can no longer be provisioned to all, only when foreigners and minority groups can no longer hide behind the state for protection, will we see

Source

Dr. David Betz, who has been moving Heaven and Earth sounding the alarm about the imminence of civil war in the West, recently said on X:

Sorry, that’s what I’m saying about tipping point. We’re not at the brink anymore. That was ten years ago. We’re past that. There’s no coming back from it.

Well, that’s nice to know, isn’t it? Witnessing events in Los Angeles a few weeks ago, however, made me wonder if in the United States, too, we’re no longer at the brink and if so, when that was. 2020? Or was it a few weeks ago?

Whenever it was, what’s undeniable is that civil war is inevitable in the West. Dr. Betz’ latest interview is by far his most detailed, extensive, and hard-hitting. Betz synthesizes every aspect of his thesis in a 73-minute interview with Heretics.

When you have time, watch the entire thing. It’s worth it and flies by quickly. Betz pulls no punches, but doesn’t BS his interviewer, either:

Let’s summarize some of Betz’ more significant points.

‘Ulsterization’ + Balkanization = Civil War

Betz makes the point early on that there are two levels to this conflict: ‘Ulsterization’ and ‘Balkanization.’ The latter is a term most of you are familiar with, the former perhaps less so. The root of the term is ‘Ulster,’ which is effectively Northern Ireland. The term thus refers to how a society becomes ethnically divided, battle lines being drawn along ethnic lines.

Balkanization, on the other hand, is being driven by elites and national leaders who actually possess no nationalistic sentiments, considering it backwards and corrosive to the social fabric, even as the evidence clearly shows that a lack of nationalism has led to a lack of unity. Betz and his interviewer both note that political leadership sseems to understand the importance of nationalism when it comes to Ukraine’s survival and the necessity of Britons to be willing to march off and fight Russia, but apparently not when it comes to their own country’s survival. Betz considers Balkanization to be the more dangerous conflict.

It’s this combination of fracturing along ethnic lines and elites who are incentivizing groups to live not only apart from one another, but to compete against one another, that’s driving Britain and the West towards civil war.

Don’t Expect A High Body Count. Yet.

In all of his interviews and writings on the topic, Betz has emphasized attacks in infrastructure as the main manner in which the civil war will manifest. Eventually, the casualties will come. But in the early going, which Betz warns may have already begun, though at a very proto- level, infrastructure attacks and civil unrest will be the primary indications of a country at war with itself.

Something I’m going to talk about later in this essay is the role comfort plays in all this. Basically, anyone who wants to wage war internally in the modern West, whether against the political opposition, against the state, or against society as a whole, is trying to make life uncomfortable. The simplest (not to be confused with “easiest”) way of doing so is through infrastructure attacks.

This is Max’s analysis, based on Betz’ commentary - eventually, one of two things will happen. Either the infrastructure attacks and unrest will become so normalized to the point the insurgents will shift towards directly targeting the populace. I consider the former more likely, the latter less likely. As Betz also notes, insurgencies require popular support, or at least public acquiescence. Targeting the populace clearly works against that.

The other possibility is that public sentiment will demand the infrastructure and unrest be dealt with, by force, if needed. The state response triggers an escalating series of counter-attacks by the rebels, metastasizing, to use a term Betz often employs, into a more robust, maybe even a more organized, insurgency, thereby triggering a more genuine civil conflict. The likelihood of this scenario is difficult to assess; as France currently shows, the public can demand drastic action by the state, including use of military force, to deal with a problematic segment of the population, but this doesn’t mean the state will do as demanded. We live in a managed democracy, after all. Public opinion doesn’t matter as much as we’ve been led to believe.

There Won’t Only Be Two Sides

The war will be complicated. While the belligerents will break down into two broad cultural coalitions, this won’t be like most ideological conflicts, where a clear line is drawn between Left and Right, between opposing parties, between opposing factions and sections. Betz struggles to define what the sides will look like, probably because it’s hard to say at this point.

Betz’ big point is that what will matter most in the end is where people feel safest, the implication being that this may not be entirely politically determined. Politics may not even be at the heart of it. Like in most conflicts, most people will seek to stay out of the fight. Being willing to partake in the civil war may not make you warlord. Instead, it might make you a local pariah and people may seek to get rid of you. Likewise, your unwillingness to take sides might make you persona non grata somewhere else in the country.

Of course, this is all speculative. As I say so myself, the real dividing line in the conflict may still have yet to be drawn. Betz points to the experience in the former Yugoslavia to recognize how quickly the social fabric unraveled and how little ideas really mattered. Anyone who thinks America or the West has no worth beyond its ideas will soon find how worthless those ideas really are.

In many ways, politics is as much the sideshow as it is the center of it all. People feud with other people all the time over the most mundane of things, politics playing only an exacerbating factor, not a motivating one. In the end, the politics of the coming civil war will merely serve as an excuse for violence, not the cause. Most casualties will likely come as a result of a breakdown in civility and order, not because of political differences.

There’s Nowhere Left To Run To

This is a point I’ve made as much as Betz has. He notes that in the late 17th century, it was possible to move to the New World to escape the consequences of the English Civil War. No such option exists any longer. The interviewer, Andrew Gold, flippantly mentions South America as a possible refuge. Maybe - it managed to escape the worst of both world wars, after all - but options are few. America’s great advantage, it’s size, allows Americans opportunities to seek refuge without leaving the country, a luxury unavailable to our European counterparts. But the number of nice places left in the country is running out. I’ve often said it’s when there’s nowhere left to run to is when the war starts.

Betz makes a point about how migration is going to become a common feature of the landscape in the wake of the outbreak of conflict. It’s ironic, given that migration itself is one of the more important forces driving us towards war. Unfortunately, it seems war is the only way for people to realize why mass immigration was such a bad idea, and it’ll only be over the arrival of those on the other side of the conflict into their communities. Suddenly, the importance of retaining access control becomes apparent.

He does warn - stay away from cities. I’m not sure if this extends to “stay away from metropolitan areas,” but definitely stay away from urban cores. Recent events in Los Angeles validate this counsel.

How Many Of Us Won’t Make It? Nobody Knows.

Predicting casualties is next to impossible in war. But how ever many end up perishing, it’ll be too many. As for the coming civil war, Betz claims that existing scholarship states one to four percent of a given population die in a high-intensity scenario. It doesn’t seem like much, but let’s do some math - imagine that four percent of the British population is killed during an internal conflict. Based on today’s population figures, that’s approximately 682,600 people. By comparison, military and civilian deaths combined during World War II came out to 450,900. Not only is that figure less than a low-end estimate for some future British civil war, it was also less than one percent of of the British Empire’s total population at the time. Either way, it’s a lot of people.

Since the U.S. is a much larger country by an order of magnitude, let’s go with the high-end estimate. A civil war resulting in the loss of four percent of today’s American population comes out to over 13.6 million fatalities. That’s a staggering sum. At that point, we’re talking about either a highly destructive conventional conflict lasting years, maybe decades, one which is likely to end long before we get anywhere close to 13 million casualties due to the unsustainable level of carnage.

In reality, casualties are probably going to be much lower than anyone imagines, but also more than anyone would hope. There are few conflicts ongoing today which have resulted in a cumulative total of one million deaths. It’s easy to kill a few, it’s tough to kill many, callous as it sounds. A certain someone predicted weeks before last year’s election that 1,000 people were going to die between November and April of this year. Not only did that prediction not come to pass, thankfully, but 1,000 people dying due to political violence in less than half a year is actually quite difficult to occur, as I argued at the time.

Fortunately, Dr. Betz seems to know better than to make casualty estimates. Again, even a dozen deaths a year caused by political violence is too many. Over the course of years or even decades, a dozen deaths a year amounts to quite the tragedy.

One other point the professor of war studies implies, which I really liked, was how property damage, which is to be the most likely form of violence the coming civil war takes, at least in the early going, serves as a proxy for actual person-on-person violence. Just as killing large numbers of people is tough, it’s hard to get anyone to kill another human being, says Betz. He’s not only correct, but it also means we should take property violence and riots more seriously than we do. People who burn, destroy, and loot do so in part because they’re not allowed to kill other people. But for many, that’s exactly what they want to do. Until the day comes they confidently think they can get away with doing so, most will settle for breaking and stealing.

I hope you all take the time to watch the interview, as Betz gets into a lot more, including considerations regarding the nuclear arsenals of Western countries, something which had never come to mind for me until he mentioned it. Oh, brother.

Or Maybe Nothing’s Going To Happen?

There’s nothing I enjoy more than a well-formulated counter-argument. I honestly love it when people disagree, though I draw a solid line at someone resorting to maligning one’s character. Once you accuse someone of something like racism, no further discussion can take place.

Commentator Shahid Bolsen recently argued the opposite of what people like David Betz have been saying: there won’t be a revolution in America, there won’t be a civil war in America. He goes as far as to call it a “fantasy.”

Here he is making the argument. It’s only a quarter-hour long, so I strongly recommend you watch it:

I’d never heard of Shahid Bolsen, so I had to look him up. It turns out he’s a controversial figure. From his own website:

In 2006, a disaster started in Shahid’s life when he was confronted by a tragic and catastrophic event. After encountering an online profile of a German man in Dubai seeking illicit relationships with local women, Shahid invited the man to his home with the intention of persuading him against such behaviour, but the man was inebriated, and the meeting became hostile.

The man tried to force himself sexually on the family housemaid, and a struggle ensued, leading to the unexpected death of the German. Shahid was arrested and initially charged with murder.

He was detained for seven years on Death row in Sharjah central jail without having access to a legal representation in order to tell his side of the story or present evidences.

Eventually, after presenting his case in court in Abu Dabi, his sentence was overturned by the supreme court of the UAE. Bolsen was found not being guilty of murder but was charged with accidental manslaughter on appeal and was ordered to pay Diya (blood money compensation) to the family of the deceased. He was finally released from prison in 2013.

This is, of course, Bolsen’s version of the story. That said, I don’t think any of this really affects his commentary, but it’s also important to know who’s saying what. Nonetheless, what Bolsen has to say is extremely thought-provoking.

He speaks a lot about the significance of culture. I don’t talk much about it, primarily because it’s just not my lane -

Rod Dreher

’s the man for that - but I’ll say that culture does say everything about the vibrancy of a society. If you look at places which experience persistent political upheaval - Latin America comes foremost to mind, but so does mid-20th century France - you notice that they’re also very culturally “alive” places. Art is often the way dissidents express dissatisfaction with the status quo. One of the reasons why the art and music of the 1960s still has tremendous influence today is because it was so genuinely counter-cultural at the time.

As Bolsen suggests, there’s very little daylight today between art and the Regime. Artists and entertainers today delude themselves into thinking they’re fighting against the power, the status quo, but we can all see that they propagate the same message. Nearly everything in our art sends the same messages: White people racist, Black people innocent and pure, the LGBTQ+ community represent the best of us, immigrants contribute more than any of us, it goes on and on. If anyone tries to send a counter-cultural message, there’s no way of doing so in mainstream channels. The last time I can remember when art and culture were truly counter-cultural and the mainstream provided an outlet for them was in the late-1990s, the heyday of professional wrestling and incredibly raunchy programming like South Park.

Ironically, they weren’t rebelling against a conservative status quo, but an increasingly left-liberal one, symbolized by the presidency of Bill Clinton. The convergence of culture and politics occurred during the Barack Obama presidency and has remained in place ever since. The ‘MAGA’ movement led by Donald Trump, along with the whole of the Right, is now the counter-culture. They’ve enjoyed varying degrees of limited success.

Again, I’m not trying to be a cultural critic here. My point is that societies with vibrant cultures will fight for itself more than those lacking in it. Culture is an indication of what a society thinks about itself. Currently, our culture celebrates choice, individualism, hedonism, and nihilism - exactly how America is today.

During it’s massive annual Glastonbury Festival, the world got to see what British and Western culture, more broadly, amounts to today:

Source

This artist, Bob Vlyan, wasn’t the only one sending this kind of message, either. The Palestine flag, as well as flags of a host of Third World countries, were prominently displayed. It was basically a far-left festival. Though it might be a stretch to say this is the Regime’s message, there’s not only tremendous overlap between what was on display at Glastonbury and what the mainstream Left has to say, the far-leftism exhibited is a far more culturally-accepted position than any far-rightism would be. There’s nothing counter-cultural about this at all. Aside from anti-Israel sentiment, what’s seen is boilerplate leftism taken to an extreme. And there’s no effective, no popular counter to it. It dominates our culture. It’s our culture.

Meanwhile, the real counter-culturalists end up in prison. It really isn’t about the supposed crime itself, it’s all about which side you’re on along with your place in society.

Bolsen’s most controversial argument is that there’s no totalitarian system more capable of controlling its populace better than the U.S. and there’s no people less caable of resisting totalitarianism than the American people. Obviously, people like Rod Dreher and Stella Morabito have been making this argument for years. Though it’s a stretch to call our system totalitarian, for such a free society, it has a fairly easy time getting everyone to fall into line.

He also calls out the idea that the Second Amendment serves as any sort of fail-safe against tyranny, arguing that if the Regime felt we were capable of resistance through sheer force of arms, they would’ve tried to disarm us already. Basically, Americans may possess the means of resistance, but they don’t possess the mindset for resistance.

This is the one part of his argument I don’t fully accept. If some future leftist administration made a serious push to disarm the populace, the idea there wouldn’t be any opposition at all is unfathomable. But I do understand Bolsen’s broader point, which is that having guns doesn’t make resistance more likely. Without the will to resist, the Regime can confidently allow the people to bear arms without any realistic fear of revolution.

What I personally found most interesting was when Bolsen said that Western culture has always been, at its core, feudalistic. It’s another provocative assertion and we could spend hours talking about it alone. Feudalism is a hierarchical system based off property ownership, where ownership of said property is contingent on fulfilling certain obligations to those further up the hierarchy. In that sense, according to Bolsen, none of us are truly free and we are all beholden to someone who owns more, be it property or wealth. The further we go down the road we’re on, the more our society will come to resemble feudalism of old.

It’s not all bad. It’s just the way it really is. Not to go too deep down this rabbit hole, but the middle class, at least as the way we understand it, is a product of industrialization and modernity. For most of history, feudalism or some form of it has prevailed. In many ways, an upper class is necessary because hierarchy is necessary for order to exist, and the upper class serves as society’s providers. I realize I’m making a controversial argument of my own, but I believe there’s a reason why society has been consistently organized the way it has.

I think the point Bolsen makes which everyone can agree on is that comfort makes it difficult for any real upheaval to occur. As someone once said, “Comfort Is The New Gulag.” You don’t need to threaten to send anyone to a labor camp somewhere in the Great Plains. You simply have to offer them comfort in exchange for acquiescence. Humans being humans, most will always take the path of least resistance. In societies, including our own, where people were denied access to comfort, that was when you saw serious resistance movements emerge.

In today’s society, however, nobody is denied access to comfort. In fact, some groups are afforded greater access than others, but nobody is outright locked out of heaven, to quote the musician Bruno Mars. As long as this remains so and so long as comfort can be sufficiently provisioned, there’s just no reason for a revolution or civil war to occur. It’s why self-professed resistance movements today seem so fake and lame, as Bolsen says. They’re run by people who themselves live in greater comfort than most and whom are captivated by the spectacle of resistance than the substance of it. None of these people are truly willing to endure the hardship necessary to see a revolution through to its conclusion.

The bottom line is that Bolsen could be right. There’s much in his argument I agree with and there isn’t much to dispute. Therefore, there may never be a reaction, uprising, whatever, in America. The problem is that none of this means the future will be peaceful. Countries like South Africa are living proof that a country never needs to see a revolution or civil war (though South Africa did undergo something of a revolution in the early 1990s following Apartheid) despite tremendous discontent.

A common theme in my writing to date is that the only reason why the show goes on is because a sufficient number of people keep showing up to work daily, obey the law, and pay their taxes. As long as that remains the case, a societal collapse will be hard to come by. People are quite resilient in the sense we stick to our routines if only out of normalcy bias. Even when things are clearly not normal, we will go on our living our lives as though they are and hope everything ultimately works itself out.

In fact, collapses don’t come that easy. Civil wars and revolutions can lead to collapse, certainly, but depending on who wins, they can also lead to the strengthening of the status quo. Even civil wars and revolutions don’t always occur even when the ingredients are all present. Post-Soviet 1990s Russia was a perfect example. If you ask anyone what the country was like during the decade, they’ll have very little good to say about it. Life in Russia has never been easy, ever, but ‘90s Russia was an apocalypse even by developing world standards.

Still, Russia managed to avoid both civil war and total collapse, close as it came to both. It’s what Dr. Betz calls a “national near-death experience,” where a society is brought to the brink in every imaginable way, but it never quite goes over the edge. In fact, Betz also said on his X account for everyone who cares to begin familiarizing themselves with the ‘90s Russian experience to have a good idea of what lays ahead for the West. The lesson isn’t that we’re going to endure the same exact kind of misery as the Russians did, but that America and the West will undergo it’s own version of the ‘90s Russian experience. Speculate on your own what that’ll entail.

Guerrilla Warfare In The Mountains Of Idaho

It was a hot Sunday in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. After allegedly setting a wildfire, a sniper targeted first responders, killing two firefighters and injuring one.

The report from NewsNation:

Authorities in Idaho have identified a suspect after two firefighters were fatally shot and a third was wounded Sunday while responding to a wildfire reportedly set by the gunman.

The suspect has been identified as Wess Roley, a law enforcement official told the Associated Press on Monday. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation.

“This was a total ambush. These firefighters did not have a chance,” Kootenai County Sheriff Robert Norris said at a news conference late Sunday in which he offered limited details.

Officials on Monday said they believe Roley acted alone.

The fast-moving fire was still burning Monday morning and had spread to nearly 30 acres of Canfield Mountain, officials said. Norris said his department plans to return to where the suspect’s body was found to look for additional evidence.

Here’s what we know about the shooter, 20-year-old Wess Roley. From Sarah Fields on X:

- He has a prior arrest for as*ault in 2024. This incident involved him allegedly attacking a woman with a knife, for which he was charged with felony as*ault with a d*adly weapon. He pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of misdemeanor as*ault, receiving a sentence of 180 days in jail with 150 days suspended. He was also ordered to undergo a mental health evaluation and complete anger management classes.

The question on everyone’s minds: was the attack politically motivated? It’s not clearly obvious at the moment, but the suspect did appear to have some personal grievances with political implications:

- Roley’s social media activity, particularly on X, revealed disturbing content. He posted about his disdain for authority figures, including police and firefighters, and expressed radical views. His posts included threats and general hostility toward society, which raised concerns among those who followed him. Additionally, he was known to have made threats against his family, leading to a no-contact order being issued against him.

It’s hard to imagine an attack such as this one didn’t have a political motivation. There was some initial speculation he may have been a member of an extremist group, but this not only appears to be purely speculative, it’s likely “aspirational” information, things members of the general public opining on the incident would like to be true because it confirms biases, priors, or narratives.

Even if he wasn’t part of any extremist group, it doesn’t matter. I’ve been commenting a lot lately about the increasing problem of lone-wolf terrorism and how it’s going to be the predominant fashion in which politically-motivated violence will be exacted. While it’s probably a stretch to say terror attacks by al-Qaeda, ISIS, or the Weather Underground are a thing of the past, I also think terrorism committed by groups will be comparatively rare.

In fact, lone-wolf terrorism is a much bigger problem because individuals are much harder to monitor than groups. They simply don’t leave behind the same kind of footprint. Also, in a land of millions of angry, radicalized, and unwell people, they don’t need to congregate into groups to become a problem. Remember that Timothy McVeigh, who committed the worst domestic terror attack in American history, along with the worst terrorist attack in American history until 9/11, was, along with his accomplices, acting independently. This, despite the government and the media’s attempts to tie McVeigh and Co. to the militia movement.

Setting also matters. The fact this happened in Idaho is actually quite significant. The geography of the state and the region it belongs to actually makes it quite conducive for these kinds of attacks against authorities. It’s also a place where political extremists congregate due to its relative isolation. Up until recently, it was a refuge for the far-right, but lately, the far-left has made inroads into this region also.

Even if most the country will manage to avoid the worst of the coming civil war, Idaho is one of a number of places where armed conflict will manifest most overtly. I’ve discussed before how the state is becoming a right-wing bastion and how it could, eventually, serve as a nexus for resistance against some future leftist administration. With leftists taking up residence in the state, it could also become a hotbed of internal conflict.

But for now, Idaho appears to suffer from problems even states on the opposite side of the political divide, like Colorado, are experiencing. It’s a sober reminder that there’s really no escaping the decline, and that the Fourth Turning will be felt in all corners of America in some form or another. If a civil war does occur, it might be more acute in Idaho than in other areas. But it still won’t be something a person can escape just by moving to some remote part of the country.

As more details are uncovered, we’ll have more to say about this shocking incident out of Coeur d’Alene. For this, here’s the bottom line:

Regardless of the perpetrators and their reasonings of attack, if you ever wondered what guerrilla warfare would look like in the US, this is just a taste.

Comfort Leads To Submission

I came across this provocative tweet:

A lot of people will ask why we haven’t had a civil war in this country.

It’s because of this.

There is chill or full on violence.

Time and time again history proves.

What’s “this” they refer to?

Source

The TL;DR is this: the reason Whites and Europeans don’t put up much of a fight isn’t out of weakness. It’s because for them violence is an off-on switch. There’s a time for peace and a time for war. When it’s time for war, those of European descent have proven to be most capable in doing so, and have also racked up quite the body count.

It calls to mind something Samuel Huntington once said:

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

The lesson is that nobody should mess with the West, Europeans, White people, because the eventual response will be well beyond what one expects. As Huntington explained, there’s some historical precedent for this. Europe has long stretches of peace, but it also has periods of immense bloodshed. When Westerners apply violence in organized fashion, they always hit the target. It’s how the British and Spanish empires once ruled the world. It’s how the U.S. has been seemingly unbeatable in war (even as we’ve failed to achieve our objectives in many conflicts).

That said, a lot of this sentiment is cope, as well. It’s difficult to watch one group, the West’s racial majority, no less, all but stand idly by as society crumbles around it, enduring tremendous abuse and predatory violence at the hands of racial minorities, many of whom are foreigners. As such, you might imagine members of that majority group will look to any reason to find hope that, one day, they’ll quit taking abuse and will do what every group does when faced with danger: tribalize and tap into that survival instinct.

It’s not that it’ll never happen. It’s just that it could be a very long time until it does. France has apparently been on civil war’s doorstep for years. 80 percent of French women are in favor of deploying the military to restore order in the country. Literally no major event seems to go down these days without some chaos. In Britain, you have the migrant rape gang scandal, plus open displays of hatred towards Britain by both natives, foreigners, as well as cultural figures. Similar situations are developing elsewhere in Europe. Yet in all these countries, civil war, revolution, it’s all something you can see on the distant horizon, but it never seems to get closer.

The disappointing truth may be that, barring some overall structural collapse, like a major economic calamity, there will never be a breaking point. As Shahid Bolsen says, the desire for comfort outweighs all other considerations. Nobody wants to be uncomfortable, at least when comfort is something which can still be nominally afforded. When comfort can no longer be provisioned, that’s when you might see even Whites resort to violence.

Until then, it’s just not likely. As Rod Dreher said, quoting his British friends:

The question I cannot answer, as a foreigner, is why the British are acquiescing in their own demise as a people. The other night in London, a downcast Englishman said to me, “I keep thinking that finally, they’ve gone to far, and now the English will rise up. But it never happens. I wonder if we even have it in us.”

I put that question yesterday to an English cleric friend. “No,” he said, “we don’t have it in us.”

Of course, non-Whites have access to comfort. Muslims in Britain have access to comfort. So why do they resort to violence more habitually? A lot of it is culture, but a lot of it’s also because they’re allowed to. The state gives them more rope to hang themselves with. Many of them are stupid enough to go so far. The point is that when the people in power enable your worst proclivities, none of us should be shocked that some of us choose to accept the offer. We are creatures of incentive, after all.

Only after a major structural collapse, only when comfort can no longer be provisioned to all, only when foreigners and minority groups can no longer hide behind the state for protection, will we see any truly destabilizing violence. It’s coming, but the conditions for it still aren’t there.

Comfort Is The New Gulag

Again, I have to emphasize - the future isn’t bright, either way. Even if the economy doesn’t collapse, even if the union manages to stay intact, the Fourth Turning is still the Fourth Turning. America retains plenty of capacity for violence, it’s just a matter of whether we are going to see our own Russian Civil War or if it’s going to be more like Italy’s “Years of Lead.”

Longtime readers know what I expect most - low-intensity conflict, punctuated by episodes of intense, but brief violence. However, I concede that a lot of this depends on the overall structure of the current order remaining intact, even as we are due for a change in political regimes. Once more, I confess much of this is wishful thinking. There’s not much use in predicting your own demise in the worst way imaginable, right?

As I close this out, I came across a very new interview with David Betz, this time conducted by Mary Harrington for Unherd. The following video is a roughly half-hour segment of a much longer discussion, so if the interview I discussed earlier in this piece is too long, definitely watch this one.

But what do you think? Have you been sold on Dr. David Betz’ thesis yet? Are you more or less skeptical of his predictions? What about Shahid Bolsen’s argument for why nothing’s going to happen? Did you find it convincing? What do you think about anything else discussed here?

Talk about it 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!