British Civil Unrest, Disorder and War

And why the government DON'T want it

First, a necessary disclaimer. As a great man once said:

people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles

So, to be clear, I am not trying to encourage or justify civil unrest in Britain. I am merely predicting it. Here I want to explain why I predict it, and also why I think the government are not deliberately engineering it.

---

Will civil unrest happen?

It is already happening (see Southport in 2024 and Epping in 2025), but of course the question really is “will it continue and spread?”

I think the answer is yes.

The short answer as to “why?” is that, even in mid 2025 when many people are sensing a mood developing, the government is still doing all the things that are bringing that mood about. They have no reverse gear. Despite their rhetoric, they are not reducing immigration and are certainly not doing mass deportation. In addition we have learned that, for years, they have been covertly propagandising us. Meantime the hate speech laws which muzzle us are still in force and being strengthened. Recently, the Online Safety Act came into force and the very next day numerous internet platforms had to start censoring content. We can literally see our oppression increasing in real-time. And even now, they want more. Always, we feel the government trying to stop us talking about its abuse of us. (Even as I type these words, I am aware that they could get the police raiding my home and seizing my devices.)

The same is true in the media. This morning I heard that the BBC are making a high-profile drama about 11th Century Britain in which a key historical figure will be played by a Black actor. Our news media is still biased in favour of mass immigration at any cost. Adverts are still full of black-man-white-woman couples. It is relentless.

In business, White people are handicapped by preferential treatment for non-whites in employment, business loans and career opportunities. A few days ago I got an advert on YouTube featuring a business consultant woman who defiantly said “at the end of the day, diversity is the key to success”. Middle-class White people habitually work against each other and their group interests, causing personal failure and burning resentment for many of their ethnic kin.

It doesn’t actually matter whether the people who perpetuate all of this truly “believe” in it. What matters is that they are prepared to behave as if they do. The incentives have taken on a life of their own, become self-perpetuating, making alternatives almost illegal and certainly a guarantor of “social death” and “professional death”. Even with all the evidence that diversity is bad, nobody in the professional class will dare to speak against it because, even now, that would be the end of their career. And so the poisoning continues.

In short, I feel that my country’s mainstream is working constantly against my ethnic group surviving. Furthermore I see no end in sight for this ethnic sabotage.

And many other people think the same - more and more all the time, in fact. This is why they are getting ever more angry.

Among young people there are more reasons still, economic pressures which mean they can’t get on the property ladder and build the security to start a family. That is immensely frustrating for a lot of energetic young adults, and they haven’t got (haven’t been able to get) much to lose. When a society doesn’t facilitate this most basic desire in people, it should expect upheaval.

However, against this backdrop of oppression, dysfunction and madness, the main catalyst for civil unrest will be something much more concrete: refugees sexually assaulting White women and children. Such crimes are now occurring every day. Unfortunately, there is no reason why they will lessen in frequency. (I will not endanger myself further by explaining why. Everyone knows.)

And it is the fact that, indeed, “everyone knows” which makes civil unrest inevitable. It isn’t just spergs, theorycels, doomers, basement-dwellers and politics or race science obsessives any more; it’s the apolitical working-class who just want a decent chance at life. When they believe their own government is denying them that, it is inevitable that they will “rise up”. It is only a question of when, where, how and how many.

It has been pointed out that, during covid, the public didn’t “rise up”. But I say this was because, despite the restrictions and the perversity of that situation, throughout it people were still comfortable. Most importantly, they didn’t feel their children were in danger. That is the key thing. Dangers that never attended raising a child in Britain thirty years ago are now ubiquitous, even if you live in a nice middle-class town.

The irony is, had the powers-that-be stuck to the original plan and kept Third World immigration at the scale seen in the 2000s and perhaps even the 2010s, it would possibly have worked. But the Boriswave ruined it. As I said on Twitter:

the Boriswave was a strategic mistake, probably Boris Johnson himself jumping the gun (because, as Cummings claimed, he wanted to impress the financial sector). But the result has been the boiling frog has awakened. It was too much too fast.

Boris Johnson seems a silly, superficial man, but also avaricious. Whether his motive “I want to make friends with the FT” was the real one or not, I believe he took an executive decision that more sensible people would have disallowed. Its result has been a disaster for supporters of mass immigration.

Now that “the boiling frog has awakened”, the government has two choices:

1. Go for “death or glory”: maintain high immigration so as to do maximum damage to the native British as fast as possible, before they can rebel

2. Placate the native British by cutting immigration and either deporting many of the recent arrivals or somehow putting them “out of sight”

If they go for #2, outbreaks of civil unrest will die down and the public will return to complacency. For the government this is obviously the sane choice.

But their ideology, and all of their incentives, push them towards #1.

Even the recent Afghan debacle shows that they don’t understand how angry the public are. That influx alone - 150k Afghans - might be enough to ruin (in terms of social cohesion) 1,500 British towns. If that sounds overblown, consider some town you are familiar with and ask yourself: how would it be changed by the arrival of 100 Afghans? Almost certainly, life there would never be the same again. So, if we say that each town has a population of 10k, this Afghan influx alone means that 1.5m British people who were previously complacent about race, diversity, multiculturalism and Islam will now instead be angry about those things.

---

How bad will it get?

I will speak of three stages:

• unrest (localised outbreaks of rioting, protesting, vandalism)

• widespread disorder (partial breakdown of normal life)

• war

We are certainly going to have civil unrest. Southport and Epping will be replicated in the coming years. This will be almost entirely working-class crowds, the people most directly affected by mass immigration.

Such outbreaks are dramatic but don’t lead to anything unless there is quantity (ie. a number of such outbreaks occurring simultaneously). It is unlikely that sexual attacks by migrants would happen in multiple places at once, but native resentment towards such behaviour could very easily become inflamed in multiple places at once, triggered by just one incident somewhere.

Then you would have multiple outbreaks, which the state would struggle to contain. As a layman, it seems to me that five to ten outbreaks going on simultaneously would stretch the state’s resources to breaking point, leading to widespread civil disorder. A general state of lawlessness would begin to develop around the country.

Around this time there would be a “light switch” moment when ethnic identity became crucially important to everyone, even the most boneheadedly progressive. Britain would certainly balkanise along ethnic lines. That is “baked in” to diversity, if it isn’t thwarted by social pressure (which would have fallen apart) or miscegenation (which most people don’t do).

The country would then be on tenterhooks. Cities would be dangerous, but most towns would be peaceful, but many would not be and everyone around the country would be hearing about it. They would be waiting for the (incompetent) government, police and army to “sort it out”.

The transition from there to full-scale civil war would require organisation, which would require backing from some faction of the elite.

You simply will not get the function you need without professionals who know what they’re doing, from organising people to sourcing materials, from producing propaganda to doing successful PR, from ferrying activists around to quelling pointless in-fighting, from fortifying an area to… well, whatever it is you want to do. Almost every practical operation requires the people we nowadays call the middle-class, and they in turn are animated only by the upper-class, the elite.

There must be disaffected members of the elite - people who had the right background, the right schooling and education, but the wrong mindset for the institutions of the 2000s, 2010s and early 2020s. People tend to think “the professional class” are gutless unthinking drones, but that is because only that element gets any prominence in society, on TV, etc. There must be many individuals who do have a mind of their own and do love their country. But in recent decades, management procedures determined that they wouldn’t “toe the line” and weren’t “on message”, so rejected them. These individuals would now have a chip on their shoulder, something to prove, motivation to “do something” when the system that rejected them became vulnerable. And now it would be.

When people who speak well and know how to present themselves enter the fray, that is the beginning of organisation.

Organisation is not just a practical thing but a spiritual one. People “on the ground” would be risking their lives. The spiritual momentum required to do that does not come from seven guys agreeing to “do some damage” around their local area. If people feel they would be merely partaking in chaos, then they simply won’t. Not for long, at any rate. They need to feel they are doing something meaningful, that is worth the immense risk. A sense of direction comes only with organisation, and at a large scale.

That could come from disaffected members of the upper-class “getting onboard”. They would begin creating organisations, with command structures, consistency, resources, and concrete goals. Then the masses would be much more likely to get involved.

It is also conceivable that some element of the army would join the dissent. I can imagine a colonel “going rogue”, inviting rioters into the barracks which they then fortify against the government, setting up a micro-state there which launches frequent expeditions to “cleanse” nearby towns or cripple infrastructure, etc. This might get replicated across the country, chipping away at the “state-aligned” army until the bulk of it has gone rogue, and eventually it launches a military coup.

Alternatively, a rogue brigadier in the army might decide to simply declare… something… and hope that enough of his peers - or the rank-and-file - back him up.

However it happened, the masses would only assist if they saw direction and good leadership - a chance of success.

As for billionaires, I don’t think they would be of much use in a civil war. It would be difficult for their funding to reach its destination, they would lack local knowledge of what and whom to fund, and in any case, they are highly unlikely to risk getting involved with anything like this. They simply have too much to lose. Perhaps they could funnel money to other people through clandestine means, or arrange for arms and munitions to be delivered at the shore of Britain.

A “man of the people” could emerge, and almost certainly would. I think there would be twenty or so such men around the country, probably men with useful experience in leading businesses or other major enterprises, men who can motivate, discipline and organise large numbers of people. I could imagine the country balkanising according to the geographical influence of these men. Effectively they would be modern-day robber-barons, but without the element of petty criminality. Most would be White but some would not be, and along their boundaries is where civil war would be fought. The White ones would (I hope) swiftly realise that their interests lie in cooperating with each other, not selling each other out to the foreigners. Their long-term objective - and this would be the kicker - would be to not fall in love with their power but instead cooperate with each other towards seizing the decrepit British state and rebuilding it in a more viable form.

But whether civil disorder would escalate to any of these scenarios, I honestly can’t predict. History can be our guide, but Britain has never been anywhere near this diverse before so precedents might be misleading.

It also might be the case that, when things reach a certain point, the government realise they just have to jettison their ideology and do whatever is needed (mass deportation) to restore calm. They are ideologues, yes, and they lack vision, yes, and many of them despise us, yes, and they are incompetent, yes… but when comfort evaporates these people might cave and do whatever is necessary to save their own skins.

---

Do the powers-that-be want chaos?

Some people believe the government are deliberately engineering civil unrest.

Considering the incompetence described elsewhere, I don’t believe this is the case. The British state has very limited ability to deal with civil unrest. If it erupted at any scale, I don’t believe they would be able to contain or control it, and I think they know this.

So why, then, are they doing everything to precipitate it?

I think it is a mix of hubris/contempt and “we have no option but to do these things” - ie. they have no ideological framework other than globalism, so even if it is bringing disaster, they can’t stop doing it. There is a profound lack of vision among our politicians (and no doubt our civil servants as well) so I imagine they really just can’t think “out of the box”.

This is not to discount the element of malice. Many of them, including the White ones, really do hate ordinary White people. I also believe they have “orders from above”, which have been getting carried out since 1945. The Great Replacement is the goal.

But sometimes there is no full-proof plan. Sometimes the powerful haven’t thought five steps ahead, or they have but circumstances intervened. Sometimes things are just exactly what they look like. Basically, our elites were downgraded and homogenised into oikophobic mediocrities, and are now tasked with trying to rescue a ship that is sinking much faster than intended.

Someone on Twitter argued that the powers-that-be want chaos because it will enable them to implement a police state, via digital ID. My reply:

That could be obtained more easily without civil war/unrest. They should be trying to avoid that. It would be a huge gamble for them to take, when there are other ways to get people to want digital ID. For example, they could engineer “Islamist” terror attacks.

Furthermore, would a populace who blame their government for bringing about chaos submit to a police state created by that same government? It might happen if the public didn’t blame the government… but they do. Moreover, they also blame the academics and the media who would (inevitably) justify a police state. These elements are to blame, and the public know it.

Another angle is as follows. We pretty much live in a police state already. It has been implemented around us. If you doubt it, consider that most of you will not be sharing this essay on social media, just in case the authorities notice and add you to a list. Consider that I felt compelled to include that disclaimer at the start. Consider that you and I feel, each day, that we have very little influence in our society, no ability to make our politicians respect our concerns. Consider that the police do the bidding of the powerful no matter how inconsistent or absurd. Consider that the government clearly feels it can do whatever the hell it likes, the public be damned. How is this not a police state? Only because they usually opt for the velvet glove instead of the iron fist, but even that is just expediency; after all, why break the pretence and make their job harder? So, to all intents and purposes, Britain is already a police state. Facial recognition, omnipresent CCTV, numberplate tracking, mobile phone triangulation, bank card monitoring, internet search logs… Our ancestors from a century ago would find our current subjugation by the state completely intolerable.

However, I do agree that the powers-that-be want digital ID, to enhance their surveillance/control of us. I just think they could get it more easily with the carrot than the stick.

I think the “fully-automated luxury Communism” utopianism of 2020-21 has subsided and given way to “just digital ID”. I think they are settling for that because the full utopia has been nixed by global events (October 7th) and was only ever a pipe dream of European/technocrat elites, not the global powers who are actually in charge. What they want is for us to be race-mixed into oblivion. They will want to achieve that in the least dramatic (for them) way possible, not civil war bringing about a police state that they already have anyway.

Nor will they want a dramatic moment where they “reveal themselves” to us. Such notions are the stuff of fantasy, not prosaic, realistic world-making. Observe how they have implemented the Great Replacement. Throughout its 70-year course, they have opted for low-key methods, constantly down-playing what they are doing, trying to get as many of the public on-side as possible, and working immensely hard to suppress negative reactions at every stage. I don’t think they want drama. They just want the end goal.

This is the end goal. Either version will suffice, because it doesn’t matter what politics people support or what religion they follow, if their very DNA precludes their doing a damned thing. To be “hopelessly intertwined”, as Anthony Bourdain put it, really is to be hopeless. If you have no history, how can you desire any future? This is humanity transformed into a shiftless, shapeless mass of units, incapable of deep attachment, capable only of dumbly following whatever meaningless trends are shoved in front of them. Such a population will be utterly controllable, and you won’t even need a police state to do it.

This is how populations are “neutralised” permanently. You don’t massacre them, you change them, genetically, so that they can never change back to that thing which threatens you. But you have to do it slowly. Too fast, and they will realise.

The peoples of Europe are realising.

---

Conclusion

It is an error to assume that, because something happens, it must have been desired and engineered by those in power. Sometimes things really do just happen. I don’t believe the powers-that-be wanted drama, but thanks to the Boriswave they are going to get it. And when it happens, I don’t think they are going to get their mixed-race paradise out of it as a prize. In fact I don’t think there will be any prizes for them at all.

I might be wrong, of course.

But, for now, my conclusion is that they do not want civil unrest, let alone widespread disorder or civil war. But I also think the era when they get what they want, or even pursue what they want, is coming to an end.

Whether there is civil war or not, the next twenty years are going to see seismic, epochal change all across Europe.