Europe Chooses Death: Britain

Britain is a place where everything and nothing happens at once.

Some of you might be wondering: Why’s it been so long since Max said anything about what’s happening in Britain? It’s a good question.

The answer is, until recently, I’d said pretty much everything that was on my mind on the matter, and I felt as though there was nothing left to do except watch until the shooting started. The shooting hasn’t started yet, not really, but there’s now something of an upheaval underway in the United Kingdom. Still, there just hasn’t been much in particular to write about. Britain is a place where everything and nothing happens at once.

On the question of when the great civil wars of the West will happen, my answer has always been this: when the West decides to fight back. By “the West,” I mean those committed not to the cosmopolitan, multicultural regimes which currently dominate the West, but the citizens who are loyal, first and foremost to their homeland. I don’t know if what you see happening in Britain today can be described as “fighting back,” but it’s definitely the long-awaited backlash many have warned about for years.

Still, it’s nowhere close to as explosive as many predicted. There have been bouts of unrest and acts of violence over the last year. However, I’m not seeing anything to suggest an escalation to anything greater is nigh. Of course, we often never see the SHTF coming until it happens, and there’s plenty of time for things to go wrong. But educated people make educated guesses based off existing trend-lines. The ingredients for civil war might be there, but for some reason, they’re not coming together. There’s been plenty of sparks, but as my friend Fabian Ommar once said, “Civil war isn’t a fire waiting for a spark.”

One of the reasons why we must always consult a diverse array of voices when studying any topic is because assessments can vary dramatically depending on the perspective. Over the last several months, Dr. David Betz of King’s College London has garnered the most attention as the lone voice sounding the alarm on civil war impending in his country. He makes a convincing case, but as a military historian, his perspective is just one of many. When you ask someone who studies a different discipline, like demographics, the picture changes dramatically.

I’m referring to Kaiser Bauch, of course. If you haven’t read the first two parts of my conversation with him, you’re late to the show! Here’s what he said in the first part about the situation in Britain:

You were asking about the UK specifically. I am following what is happening there and it seems it is reaching some sort of climax. But I don’t think it will be in any way cinematic and climactic as many people are expecting it to be. I think there will be changes, but I don’t think we are close to a point of some form of large-scale insurgency in any Western country because, apart from the demographic influences like the high median age, the overall level of basic abundance in our societies is incredibly high.

In most societies throughout all of history, there was always a relatively high percentage of people on the edge of literally dying from hunger, cold, disease, and so on. Understandably, if you are in that position, you are incentivized to act in certain radical ways, completely incomparable to our situation.

Even relatively poor people, or people from lower classes in Western countries, are in no danger of dying of hunger. You can always just go to the nearest shop and buy food you need - which is mostly the outcome of technologically driven productivity increases of past centuries which were absolutely massive. So, I think technological and demographic factors blow off a lot of steam from the pressure, even if the pressure is relatively high.

Many people really hate it when you tell them that we’re too fat and happy to have a civil war. To say otherwise, however, is to deny the fact that humans are creatures of incentive. People do what they can get away with, along with following the path of least effort and resistance. Britain is headed for some economic tough times, but it’s not headed for economic collapse, either. No matter how tough times get, Britons aren’t going to throw everything out the window just to start settling scores with political opponents. The White Briton isn’t known for doing that, anyway.

When asked about Dr. Betz specifically, Kaiser Bauch had this critique to offer:

Yes. I think he, but generally people that engage in social comparison of our age with past historical epochs, might not be fully appreciating the differences in the level of demographic and technological differences between our age and all the previous ages. I agree with him that when you look at all the isolated factors, the outcome looks like there should be or could be a civil war. The historical analysis - the claim that societies in this particular set of circumstances usually end up in civil conflict, is probably correct. But I think our age is fundamentally very different.

People are different and behave differently. If you look at society as sort of a big social super-organism, then for all of history, this social super-organism would be like an 18-year-old guy and would act as an 18-year-old guy. There were also women as well of course, but for the sake of argument, let’s say society was young men. Today, society is like a middle-aged guy, he has kids, responsibilities, a mortgage, his back is hurting a bit. He has Netflix, food delivery, TikTok and so on. He was never really hungry his whole life. There are some fundamental differences. Of course, I might be wrong, and if that happens, I will be the first one to say I was completely off of the mark with these predictions.

His characterization of modern society as a “middle-aged guy” was an interesting way of illustrating it, because it’s true. A demographically old society does, in fact, behave like an older society. In America, for example, crime rates were much, much higher when it was a younger country, because we had a surplus of young men, and young men set the pace for crime rates. A young society also fights more wars, and it’s young men who go off to fight them.

Conversely, a middle-aged society is going to have less crime, even as there remain many criminals among us, and it’ll also fight fewer wars where we send troops directly into the line of fire. A middle-aged society is also going to have less dynamism; it’s done all its growing and isn’t into partying as much as it once was. Whatever growth it still enjoys is at a more graceful pace; the urge to hustle has faded and there’s a greater focus on just living comfortably.

Britain is a slightly older society than the U.S.; it’s median age, as of 2024, is 40. This means half the population is older than 40, and the population pyramid shows how small the under-30 segment of the population really is. Unless anyone really thinks people in their 40s and 50s are going to be taking up arms and becoming paramilitaries, this isn’t a society capable of waging civil war or even a large-scale insurgency. Remember - Dr. Betz is predicting civil war sometime in the next five years; this means, by 2030, Britain’s median age will be another year or two older, and the under-30 crowd will make up an even smaller portion of the population. It really is a numbers game.

But what about the Muslims? Aren’t they younger and more male? Yes, the Muslim migrants are a huge problem throughout the West. But sort of like Blacks and illegal immigrants in the U.S., they’re a problem made worse by the culture and states of the West enabling them. This is clearly a bad thing, but it also means Muslims as a group have a vested interest in not acting out too badly and maintaining some discipline in their behavior in order to stay on state and society’s good side and avoid triggering a serious backlash. This means they have an incentive not to launch a large-scale insurgency, something which would absolutely force a government led by someone even like Keir Starmer to do something about it.

One more take from Kaiser Bauch:

But, if we were using demographic analysis to look at the current predicament, I would say that it hugely decreases the probability of something like a civil war. There might be low-scale, low-intensity violence, riots, stuff like that. That definitely can happen. But I think the term civil war is not really an accurate assessment of the situation because I can’t really imagine how that would even look in practical terms. To have a genuine civil war, the only scenario I can imagine is if the armed forces of some country would split into two factions, and those two factions would go at it. But other than that, you need genuine armed forces with logistics, arms, organization, everything. Civil war is a regular war. It’s not just people brawling in the streets.

Typically, when I use the term “civil war,” I mean it in a broadly general sense. But Kaiser Bauch is also correct in saying people brawling in the streets isn’t civil war in an academic sense. Low-intensity conflict is the best term for what I think the West faces in the coming years. Neither I nor Kaiser Bauch rule out violence - the next several years aren’t going to be a peaceful time. But they’re not going to be a total bloodbath, either, and if you ask Kaiser Bauch, a lot of the scenarios being posited even by Dr. Betz are a bit much.

It’s easy to say that it doesn’t take many to start a revolution. This saying is a favorite among doomers, but it also doesn’t mean a whole lot. The actual combatants in any armed conflict are a minority of the population. In a low-intensity conflict, it’s a minority of a minority. It also doesn’t change the fact you still need a young population - during The Troubles of Northern Ireland, the model of conflict our coming civil wars are most often compared to, the most common casualty was a 19-year-old male. Now, both Britain and the U.S. have millions of 19-year-old men, so some of them will invariably end up waging war against state and society. Some of them may even form insurgent groups. Who knows?

The issue isn’t whether violence will occur. It will, it already is. The issue is the scale and sustainability of violence. There’s just not enough young people, not enough energy out there for some large-scale, countrywide insurgency to kick off in the UK or the U.S. More importantly, in my view, there’s not enough of either to sustain truly damaging violence beyond short-term outbursts every few years, and sporadic incidents in between. Taken altogether, it might add up to a rather deadly, if not devastating, conflict over the long term, but nothing that’s going to bring life to a screeching halt.

All this is to say we’re in a totally uncharted territory. History has never seen a civilization where there exist more older people than younger people, so we have no framework whatsoever with which to base our predictions off of. All I can say is, imagine two middle-aged men trying to fight, and you’ll get a sense of what the civil wars in the West’s future will look like.

Something like this:

No Political Relief In Sight

It’s easy to forget, but one of the easiest ways to tell whether a country is headed for upheaval is through political trends.

Take a look at the voting intentions of Britons aged 18 to 24 in the upcoming elections:

What’s happening here? From Eric Kaufmann:

British Zoomers are massively left-wing.

Greens, led by a nut who thinks men should play in women’s sports, is on 40%.

Reform & Tories, just 15%.

Unless the British right can overhaul education and the public institutions that shape the next generation, it’s game over.

In addition to age, politics is working against Britain. I don’t think many Americans understand how far-left, how “Woke” Britain is. If the overwhelming choice in the upcoming election among Gen. Z Britons is for the Green Party, that’s quite the resounding endorsement of the status quo. Kids these days - they’re not the rebels they once were.

It’s only because Britain is an aging society that Reform has such a commanding lead. Specifically, among voters aged 50 and older. In the next youngest age group in the poll - 25-to-49 - Reform and Green are tied at 21 percent, with Labour at a slim 22 percent lead. It seems Millennials and late-Gen. Xers are the most divided cohort.

What does this say about the prospects of civil war in the UK? First, those who support Reform - the dissidents - are those aged 50 and older, the age demographic least likely to engage in any violence. Second, nobody starts a civil war because they support the establishment. Britain’s 18-to-24 age group isn’t going to revolt if they’re satisfied with the general political direction of the country. Their complaints, if they have any, aren’t that the government is being tyrannical, but if anything, that they’re not being tyrannical enough. Third, as I keep saying, young people are the minority. They don’t have the critical mass necessary to wage war against state and society, even if they wanted to.

Though I agree with Dr. Kaufmann that the short-term political prognosis of Britain is very bad, it may not be necessarily so long-term. Not only are Zoomers a small percentage of the overall population, they’re going to age, too. This means some Zoomers will inevitably defect, even if its only to the establishment Labour Party. As the situation worsens in the country, discontent towards the ruling elites, who lean Left as a group, will only intensify. As violence worsens in the country due to crime and immigration, even young people may begin to turn rightward, a phenomenon seen in France.

I confess this is wishful thinking, but it’s also based on data. Far-leftism has some mileage left, but it could also run out of steam in the not-so-distant future. Hardship is radicalizing, and combined with an aging population, rightward is where Britain may be forced to go. But this also assumes the British Right proves competent enough to reform the system, which most everyone, myself included, finds doubtful. This is the main reason why so many are pessimistic about the UK’s future.

It raises the question: how many more elections will Britain have to go through before anyone realizes there’s no political solution, for the ruling class to realize that working against the people is an awful way to govern a country? If they haven’t figured it out by now, they’ll probably do what they always do - wait until it’s obviously too late.

The Left Stands It’s Ground

It’s not just the inability of the political system to address glaring problems that’s leading to such pessimism and the belief only large-scale violence can fix things. It’s also the fact the political divide has become so intractable, the rhetoric so absurdly ideological, to the point it’s impossible to find even a hint of common ground.

Here’s an example of what passes for leftist discourse in Britain today:

First - what’s with those eyes? I hate to be so superficial, but there’s this look these people have in their eyes. It’s the look of someone who’s forcing themselves to believe something they don’t actually believe, like someone under duress.

Anyway, the most peculiar statement he makes is, “You’re never going to stop people coming here, all you’re doing is making people take more dangerous measures.” All anyone needs to do is to apply this statement to any other context to see how flawed the logic of it really is. “You’re never going to stop people from taking drugs, all you’re doing is making people take more dangerous measures.” “You’re never going to stop someone from trying to break into your home, all you’re doing is making people take more dangerous measures.” As though Britain is responsible for relieving migrants of any risks they choose to take. This logic doesn’t make sense under any other circumstance, but it’s supposed to make sense on the topic of immigration.

The Left’s stance has always amounted to, “Let anyone who wants to come do so.” No questions asked, no expectations imposed. The answer can never be “no.” There’s no way to take this stance as anything other than capitulation, even if people like the man seen in the video above honestly believe what they say. I say this about the immigration debate in the U.S. as well - if the question comes down to whether a country has the right to say “no”, then no common ground can be had. There can be no “buts” - either a country can say no without having to justify to anyone or the choice isn’t really theirs.

The thing about leftists and liberals is, for all their educated and innate intelligence, they lack wisdom. That is, the ability to formulate a coherent, consistent worldview. The same people who say we should just allow anyone to come to the country because to restrict them from doing so forces them to resort to more dangerous measures are the same people who will jail and prosecute people over off-sides social media posts and ensure there’s no such thing as a private conversation or even thought. Yes, this is really happening in Britain. Freedom of speech doesn’t exist over there.

As for the Muslim community, they’re employing soft power, as I explained earlier, opting to weaponize empathy to further entrench themselves as a dominant player in British culture, politics, and society. It’s a strategy that’s working, too. As is so often seen throughout the world, the Left frequently joins forces with Islam, because Islam provides a critical mass that knows how to mobilize, exploit weaknesses in other groups, and credibly threaten violence without triggering backlash.

It makes them formidable, but it also exposes just how pathetic a group they are. Take a look at this headline from earlier in the year:

Source

For those who may not remember, 52 were murdered, 784 more injured in the July 7, 2005 London bombings at the hands of Islamists. Yet the Muslim community can only feel sorry for themselves, and British culture is happy to indulge their self-pity. For such a proud people, Muslims are extremely fragile. Maybe that’s what exposure to liberalism does?

Then there’s the demand for racism in the UK outstripping the supply of it:

Source

This prompted an all-time epic reply from Dutch right-wing commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek:

Us white girls sit at train stations wondering if we’re going to be pushed in front of a train or stabbed in the throat.

But yeah, poor you.

Let’s be real: worrying about who’s racist and who’s not is a luxury compared to whether you’re going to come under physical assault. Nobody cares about this “brown girl” either. If she’s being genuine in her sentiment - and she’s not - that’s an indictment against so-called “multicultural Britain,” isn’t it?

More important, the reality is that it’s most Britons who are scared of this brown girl, who has the full power of the British state at her disposal and the ability to destroy lives like no other. There are people in positions of power who care very much deeply about what she has to say. Plus, she could be a terrorist.

I’ve always believed predictions of civil war, which are more common on the Right, is due to an exasperation with the Left’s antics and rhetoric. It’s tiring hearing and seeing all this stuff. I, too, find it deflating to imagine being subjected to this nonsense for the rest of my years. Worst of all, this is all happening while they’re in power. Imagine what they’re going to be like out of power? Would Muslims quit being all moderate and resort to jihadism?

The core problem isn’t Islam, however. It’s the Left. The Muslims only have power because the Left dominates the institutions and gave Muslims many seats at the table. If, somehow, the Left’s grip on Britain’s institutions was loosened, it’d do a lot to solve the country’s problems. It’s unclear how this can be accomplished, however. Winning elections and controlling government isn’t the same as controlling the institutions.

For at least the next five years, I’d expect the Left’s command of the institutions to remain unchallenged. Again, I couldn’t even begin explaining how their grip could be loosened. It won’t happen politically, that much is certain. It’ll likely take some sort of black swan event, like a major economic crisis, with a left-wing party also in control of government, in order to discredit leftism for good. Even then, you’re talking about a long process of purging the institutions of leftists, or at least restoring balance.

Reports Of Civil War Are Greatly Exaggerated

Let’s bring things back full circle. I came across this essay published on Chronicles, a paleoconservative (or what the Left would call “far-right”) magazine, explaining why predictions of civil war in Britain are, indeed, overblown.

The author, Neema Parvini, first explains how yes, things are very bad across the Atlantic, the ruling class has ruined everything, Keir Starmer is a tyrannical prime minister, foreign powers - America included - are doing their part to destabilize the country, social media is making things far worse than they need to be, and that Britons are still far too comfortable to throw it all out the window in exchange for war. All these things are true at once, Parvini says.

He then explains:

I remain skeptical about the prospect of widespread civil conflict in Britain. Such conflicts require tightly organized minorities, funding, stocks of arms and munitions, and explicit aims, causes, and demands. Professor Betz frequently cites “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland as a precedent for what is about to befall Britain, but virtually none of those conditions prevail here. Quite apart from the fever dreams of Daily Mail columnists, the Muslim communities in Britain are mostly led by moderate, regime-compliant types who are part of the Labour Party machine, not militant jihadis. To the extent they are organized, it is to harvest ballots with a shamelessness that would make even Joe Biden wince.

Parvini’s right. In Northern Ireland, Catholics were disenfranchised. Whichever side of the conflict one took, there was no question the Catholics had legitimate grievances. Today’s Muslims in Britain don’t. They’re not disenfranchised. If anything, they have the full power of the state behind them. They’re represented in government like few other groups - just look at Humza Yousaf in Scotland. They even had authorities running cover for them while running rape gangs. They have literally no reason to rebel. The more you think about it, the less sense it makes for them to start an insurgency or wage war against other groups.

Be careful not to take the term “moderate” too literally, either. He’s just saying the Muslims of Britain, for the most part, prefer soft power over hard power, speaking to how Muslims have a strong incentive not to get on the British state’s bad side. When the Right and native Britons are the ones British authorities have their eye on, the last thing you’re going to do is wage violence. All that would do is draw attention of the wrong sort.

As for the British Right:

“The right,” meanwhile, is scarcely organized at all, for fear of the law. It’s almost illegal to be right-wing in Britain, let alone to be right-wing and organized. Nearly all such attempts are subject to infiltration or intervention by the security state, whose vigilance on this score hysterically puts right-wing groups on par with the aforementioned militant jihadis. So, the notion that these two tribes—both proscribed as terrorists by the British state—are about to go to war seems like fantasy.

On one side, we have Muslim communities that literally can’t figure out how to organize rubbish disposal. On the other, we have “the right,” whose best organizer is the anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson, who is about to lead a large “free speech rally” in London, even as Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage disavows him (perhaps wisely). These groups and their rallies are crawling with law enforcement. The most organized minority is still the government, which can play divide and conquer all day long and win 10 times out of 10.

Unlike the Muslims, the British Right, along with native White Britons as a whole, have legitimate grievances. But not only are they under the state’s jackboot, they still have access to bread and circuses, plus they’re an older population. From the British state’s perspective, they’re an entirely manageable problem. As Parvini says, even if the Muslims were a more aggrieved, militant group, this would only lead to the diversion of attention by authorities towards the Islamists. The two sides have all the incentive in the world not to act out. Furthermore, whatever animosity exists between the UK’s Muslim left and White far-right is nowhere near endemic as the animosity between Catholics and Protestants was in Northern Ireland. The real split is between Left and Right, more broadly.

Never forget:

The most organized minority is still the government, which can play divide and conquer all day long and win 10 times out of 10.

I always chuckle when I hear someone say that the states of the West have lost legitimacy, or are losing it. What they’re really trying to say is that the states are relying more on hard power than soft power to enforce their will. They’ve gone from asking to telling to forcing. As long as the state can impose its will the hard way, it hasn’t lost legitimacy. It’s not matter of whether the populace approves of the government or not. That’s what elections are for, anyway.

In fact, even a low-intensity conflict will have a hard time breaking out unless the state itself breaks down in some very critical way. I mentioned earlier that predictions of civil war mostly come from the right and stem from the fact that politics have completely stalled, offering no solutions to our problems. It’s in just such a state that the risk of armed conflict increases, but it doesn’t mean it’s guaranteed, either.

X account “eugyppius” explains:

It’s not to say the political establishment doesn’t suffer from polarization. It absolutely does. However, both sides also have an incentive not to rock the boat too much because their powers are quite limited and it’s the ability to control the culture which matters most, anyway. So, while it’s hard to believe civil war won’t happen given how intractable Britain’s problems have become, the system would have to fail catastrophically in some fashion for it to become the inevitability Elon Musk considers it to be. Otherwise, we’re looking at low-intensity conflict at worst.

I think this is a very important point by Parvini, one which applies to the U.S. as much as the UK [bold mine]:

Political theories that rely on spontaneous mass action as part of their logic seldom see it materialize. The idea of bottom-up, grassroots change is a comforting fiction that avoids confronting more troubling truths, such as the fact that the BLM and Antifa riots during 2020’s Summer of George Floyd were top-down, state-backed, and media-backed, not a spontaneous mass movement. Antifa and BLM were stormtroopers of the regime—counterrevolutionary forces, not revolutionary ones. The truth is that it was ever thus, as demonstrated by recent revelations about U.S. federal agencies backing left-wing activism domestically and abroad.

Only a fool believes Antifa and BLM represent some dissident vox populi. They represent elite opinion, even if only small segments of it. If they were bottom-up, grassroots movements, they’re probably among the only ones to receive official cover from the state and media. Without manufactured legitimacy and funding from powerful entities, its unlikely either Antifa or BLM would’ve emerged as such influential political forces. Follow the money, as they say. Even many on the Right readily admit their side’s weakness is a comparative inability to organize and lack of money.

Finally:

When the peasants actually do revolt without state or media backing, as we saw during the COVID lockdowns, the truncheons and nightsticks tend to come out. In the history of peasant revolts since 209 B.C., only six out of out of 143 documented cases were successful; 131 were utterly crushed by the authorities.

Nobody on the Right wants to admit this, but an actual right-wing revolt without state backing would be crushed in relatively short order. Even having a Trump or Farage in a position of power would help little, since they’re both broadly unpopular figures, lack institutional support, and aren’t effective leaders to start. I don’t care how many guns Americans have; as Shahib Bolsen once said, if the state truly felt threatened by this, we would’ve all been disarmed by now. Oh, and the Right is comprised most of old people, so there wouldn’t be that many right-wing revolutionaries, anyway. Spare me the lectures about “It only takes a committed minority,” I’ve already addressed that.

Read the entire essay. It serves as an excellent counter-argument to those saying that civil war is inevitable at this point. Anyone who wants to approach the topic with any degree of intellectual honesty needs to be willing to consider dissenting arguments, especially when they come from the same side.

Keep Calm And Carry On

As many of you can tell, I’ve since become a skeptic of the belief that civil war is guaranteed to occur in Britain before the decade is out. A more comprehensive, expansive look at the data paints a more complex, nuanced picture than I imagined. Amid the headlines and social media outrage, it’s easy to forget the world just keeps turning. I think the demographic perspective is most compelling, yet it’s also the one that’s most neglected by those who believe civil war will definitely occur.

That said, there are two caveats. One, my assessment only applies to the next five years or so. It doesn’t consider anything beyond that. Forecasting events for the next half-decade is a matter of hypothesizing. Past that, it’s pure speculation. History can take crazy, unexpected twists and turns, trends can change, thus altering the timeline. Civil war may not be coming to the UK in the next five years, but the next five thereafter? We’ll need to reassess the situation then.

Second, I think Dr. Betz will be at least partly vindicated. I think something is going to happen; as I so often say, there’s too much pressure built up in the system, not all of which can be released through elections. There’s genuine fear and loathing across the political divide, among the different ethnic groups. At least some people will “answer the call,” so to speak, and engage in disruptive or terroristic behavior. Some may even attempt infrastructure attacks. But overall, these will be one-offs, not the work of an organized insurgency. Get enough of these incidents and yes, we can absolutely see a chaotic situation. Nothing that’s going to risk overturning the whole order, though.

There will be times of heightened violence, when things happen more often, more quickly. It’ll certainly feel like the British Civil War is about to kick off. But they’ll be followed by long periods of relative calm, where everyone sort of forgets and moves on to the next big controversy. The truth is, very few of want to get in the mix, and even fewer of us want to wage war for years on end. Most of us will settle for trash-talking on social media. Annoying, yes. But is that really worth sending Britain off the cliff over?

The problem, of course, is that unless things get better, unless the immigration situation is properly handled, things will get inevitably worse. Reform could win the next election handily, as they appear set to do, but their ability to actually do any reforming is limited. If they fail, and get bounced in the election thereafter, what then? That’s beyond the range of my radar, thus ends my speculation. But maybe then, civil war will be a more likely outcome, though Britain will be a much older country by then.

All I can say is, at the moment, Britain is dying a slow death, one of its choosing. Even if the Muslims don’t take over and establish a caliphate, it definitely faces a situation where it may indeed have to cede parts of the country in the long run just to maintain some semblance of peace and order. I have no idea what that looks like, nor is it useful to speculate on something like that. I’ll say, though, that Northern Ireland does provide an example of how populations long at odds with one another manage to co-exist without killing each other any further. I’m not sure if that’s feasible between, say, Muslims and Whites, but my point is a precedent of sorts exist.

Whatever comes to pass, I say with a fair amount of confidence whatever does happen in Britain will be far less dramatic than many anticipate, but profound will be the consequences, even if it’s not so obvious at the time. By the time the 2030s roll around, Britons all across the spectrum, of all walks of life, will realize things are much too late. To quote Neema Parvini one more time, “By the time they wake up again, the damage will already be done.” This is the one consistent theme throughout the West - by the time a societal consensus exists that there’s a problem, it’s already too late to really do anything about it.

Maybe it already is. Britain seems defenseless against the savagery of the migrants. Another stabbing spree, one that claimed the life of 49-year-old Wayne Broadhurst, further damns multiculturalism, and of course the Left has nothing to say about it.

From Remix News & Views:

Police have confirmed that a 22-year-old Afghan national has been arrested on suspicion of murder and attempted murder after a triple stabbing in Uxbridge left one man dead and two others injured.

Officers were called to Midhurst Gardens at around 4:40 p.m. on Monday following reports of multiple stabbings.

Emergency services found three people injured at the scene. A 49-year-old man, suffering from stab wounds, died despite the efforts of paramedics. A 14-year-old boy was taken to the hospital with knife injuries, and another man, aged 45, remains in the hospital with life-changing injuries.

Wayne Broadhurst, 49, was stabbed 15 times while walking his dog. He is not believed to have known his attacker.

Police said the suspect was tasered and arrested nearby before being taken into custody. GB News reported that the man is an Afghan national. According to The Times newspaper, he arrived in the U.K. in the back of a lorry in November 2020 and claimed asylum, which was successful. He was granted leave to remain in 2022.

Footage of the senseless murder has circulated on social media, showing the attacker approaching Mr Broadhurst from behind, before stabbing him, causing him to fall down. As he lay on the ground, lifting his hands to defend himself, his attacker continued to plunge the blade into his body multiple times.

It’s hard to believe nothing will come of atrocities like these, day after day. If Britons are known for anything, however, it’s their ability to endure. Keep Calm And Carry On is their mantra. Maybe there’s such a thing as being too calm, too willing to endure hardship. But maybe there’s also no other choice. The likelihood they’ll ever get their country back to how it was before is next to nil, even with mass remigration. I can’t even begin to imagine what a solution might look like, maybe there’s none. I don’t expect Britons to surrender their country, either. But maybe if things do get bad enough, it’ll at least have the effect of Balkanizing society. The phenomenon has a negative connotation, but segregation is always better than forced integration between hostile groups.

Even among non-hostile groups, people prefer living among their own, even White British liberals, the most enthusiastic supporters of multiculturalism. Their families and social groups are nowhere near as diverse as they claim they are. Continued violence will force groups apart from each other, and separation will have the effect of minimizing conflict. Remember that the Left-Islam alliance is ultimately a fragile, unsustainable one. Islam doesn’t love the Left anywhere near as much as the Left loves Islam.

Leftists can call Muslims “bruv” all they’d like, but it’s all a matter of convenience, in the end:

Maybe the Left will quietly conclude that sharing the country with White British racists might be the safer bet, after all?

Until anything more happens in the UK, until the shooting kicks off and stuff starts blowing up, this is probably the last time I have this much to say about the situation in our national ancestral homeland. Part of me hopes I won’t have to say much, because it means nothing ever happens, which is actually better than the alternative, believe it or not. Most of the time, anyway. There’s a lot more I could’ve covered here, but the main thrust of my argument was to make a case for why Britain isn’t headed for civil war in the next five years.

For anyone who still thinks Britain is headed for civil war, I suggest checking out this six-part series of articles on what that might look like. Consider it an elaboration of Dr. Betz’ thesis from more of a practical, technical level. Even if you, like me, find a civil war unlikely, there’s still much useful information to be gleaned from it.

It’s your turn to hypothesize - do you think Britain is still headed for civil war? Why or why not? Do you find the arguments against a civil war happening to be convincing? What do you think the future, the next five years specifically, hold for the UK?

Share your thoughts 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!