The warning, from Professor David Betz, one of the UK’s most prominent military theorists, continues to circulate on the Internet. Betz, a prominent academic in the field of military strategy and contemporary warfare, serves as Professor of War in the Modern World within the Department of War Studies at King’s College London.
As such, nearly everyone reposting clips of his writings and interviews has taken the position that he is an honest broken, a neutral expert merely telling it like it is. But is this really the case? Is Prof Betz in the same position as Enoch Powell in 1968, when our great non-Prime Minister observed that to predict disaster is not the same as to want it? Or is he, rather than warning, actually trying to incite?
In addition to heading the MA War Studies program, he directs the Insurgency Research Group at the university. He regularly lectures to the upper echelons of the British Army, and is closely linked to its intelligence institutions.
Betz is also involved with influential think tanks, notably as a Senior Fellow at the U.S.-based Foreign Policy Research Institute. We will return to the question of the Professor’s connections and intentions later, but let us first recap on his explosive warnings:
His stark analysis of Britain’s spiral towards failed state went unreported by the legacy media – with the exception of the pro-Labour Daily Mirror and the Anglican niche Church Times. But alternative media platforms – particularly pro-Zionist ones with their own anti-Islam axes to grind - have seen huge numbers of Brits listening to, and sharing, the counter-insurgency expert’s predictions for Britain, and most of the rest of the Western world.
The Professor starts by explaining how popular trust has been shattered by the liberal elite’s refusal to give the British public the clean and clear Brexit they voted for, relentless favouritism towards immigrants, and endemic incompetence and lack of accountability. This has combined with the realization that the indigenous British are losing control of their own homeland, pushing them to a position which is a common precursor to civil war.
A succession of high-profile murders and brutal assaults by illegal immigrants billeted at taxpayers’ expense in luxury hotels has added to the anger felt over the gang rape of around a million young white girls by rape gangs overwhelmingly made up of Muslim men. All this at a time when the entire West is running out of the ability to borrow or print the money needed to try to hold things together.
In YouTube videos now watched by several million people, and in articles in publications such as Military Strategy Magazine, Professor Betz has been very clear about just how dangerous the situation really is. Here are some of his key takeaways:
“Approximately 75 per cent of post-Cold War civil conflicts have been fought by ethnic factions. Therefore, that civil war in the West will be likewise is unexceptional.
“Identity politics may be defined as politics in which people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group. It is overtly post-national. It is this above all that makes civil conflict in the West not merely likely but practically inevitable.”
“I strongly believe at this point that the main threat to the security and prosperity of the West generally, and the U.K. specifically now, is civil war, not external war.
“And what I would want to stress is that this calculation on my part has been arrived at by analysis of the official British statistics on British social attitudes, on mainstream academic ideas about social capital, about societal cohesion and political stability; plus, long established, pretty standard theories of civil war causation.”
A map used by David Betz to illustrate his suggestin that the indigenous side of the coming civil war wuld commit ‘urbicide’ by cutting off essential services to immigrant-dominated cities. How many autistic teenagers are in prison for having “material of use to a terrorist organisation” which is in fact far less dangerous and provocative than this?
“The coming civil war that I imagine will have initially the qualities of a Latin American dirty war; but that is going to metastasize pretty rapidly into a broader civil conflict that will have an essential rural versus urban dimension; that relates essentially to demographic patterns in the broader society.”
“The major problem of government is this destruction of legitimacy through a bunch of factors. Primarily the one which is most evident now, on account of recent events, is the failure to secure the country, the failure to secure its borders against what can only be described as a large-scale border raid, and the failure to protect children (the most vulnerable people in our society) from the most extraordinary and grotesque predation on a very large scale.
“All of that compounded by the denial and the cover up of systemic failings and, it must be said, individual high-level culpability in government at all levels and in the police force. Plus, on top of that, the increasingly predatory wealth extraction policies that have to come in because they’re simply running out of money, so they have to extract more and more from whoever seems to have any.”
Betz believes that increasing ethno-religious tensions will polarize already divided communities even further, with large numbers of indigenous Brits fleeing the increasingly “feral” cities.
“There is a distinctively observable urban-rural dimension to immigrant settlement patterns: basically, the cities are radically more heterogenous than the countryside. Thus, logically, we may conclude that civil wars in the West that burn across ethnic cleavages will have a distinctively rural vs. urban character.”
Professor Betz’s most shared comments, however, are those in which he does the maths on the likelihood of such developments.
“Walton concluded that in any year just under four per cent of the countries in which the conditions of civil war were present would experience it…… over the coming decade the collective West is in deep trouble. Moreover, there is little reason to hope that should one kick off in one major country its consequences would not spread more widely to others.
“Let us assume, based on the existence of recent statements to that effect by credible national political or academic figures, that there are at least ten countries in Europe that face the prospect of violent civil conflict. In Appendix 1, I provide fifteen such examples—readers may dispense with whichever five of those they deem less credible. The chances then of it occurring in any one of these countries over five years is 87 per cent (or 95 per cent if you include all 15 of the sample).
“A further reasonable assumption is that if it occurs in one place it has the potential to spread elsewhere. If we say, arbitrarily but plausibly, that the chances of spreading are half and half, then we may conclude that the chances of it occurring in one of ten Western states and then spreading to all others is about 60 per cent (or 72 per cent with all fifteen of the sample included) over five years.”
Finally, we should note his predictions as to potential casualties. Extrapolating from the casualties in the low-level civil war in Northern Ireland he suggests that the lowest credible figure is 23,000 deaths per year. The actual figure he settles on, however, is somewhere between that and the four per cent of entire population seen in Bosnia as multicultural Yugoslavia was torn apart by the exact same tensions.
As suggested at the start of the essay, most of the ‘right’, and millions of basically a-political people, in Britain have taken Prof. Betz’s predictions at face value. To huge numbers of ordinary Brits, he was only putting into erudite academic language what they have been thinking and saying for years now: “It’s going to end in civil war”.
But, as I also wrote near the start of this piece, there has to be a question as to whether he is only predicting “The British Troubles”, or whether he is speaking as on of those who actively want them. To assess this, let us take a deeper dive into the aspects of his professional life which have been mentioned by way of establishing his credibility, but which may tell us something about his motivations.
In addition to his Kings College and British military connections, Prof Betz is also a Senior Fellow of the Foreign Policy Research Institute.
The Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) is an American think tank based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, that conducts research on geopolitics, international relations, and international security in the various regions of the world and on ethnic conflict, U.S. national security, terrorism, and on think tanks themselves. It publishes a quarterly journal, Orbis, and a series of monographs, books, and electronic newsletters.
It all sounds very high-brow and independent, but then I took a closer look for you. And who pops up? Daniel Pipes, one of the high priests of the ‘Counter-Jihad’, funded by the usual Likudnik billionaire suspects and a key player in their long-term operation to fan popular concern about Islam into a conflagration desired for its benefits to the Zionist state which is their overriding obsession.
In a speech given at the Heritage Foundation on June 5, 1991, former FPRI member Daniel Pipes stated that the FPRI is an activist organization driven by its own ideology:
“Put most baldly, we have always advocated an activist U.S. foreign policy….Perhaps most controversially, the professional staff is not shy about the use of force; were we members of Congress in January 1991, all of us would not only have voted with President Bush and Operation Desert Storm, we would have led the charge.”
The FPRI’s Board Membership list has always been dominated by Neo-Con war hawks, with heavy representation from international banks and Military-Industrial corporations. It is, put simply, a manifestation of the Wall Street/Washington/CIA ‘Deep State’.
Leave a comment
There is, however, something in the Professor’s CV which gives a glimpse of greater complexity than the usual Zionist/Neo-Con operation with which many of my readers are familiar. In 2012, Prof. Betz was lead author of a book, Cyberspace and the State. This was published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies
The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) describes itself as “a world-leading authority on global security, political risk and military conflict. With offices in London, Washington DC, Bahrain and Singapore, the Institute owes allegiance to no government. It works to shape the strategic agenda for governments, business, media and experts across the world using fact-based research, insightful analysis, published in a suite of prestigious publications and world-renowned summits that promote international dialogue.”
The Guardian has described the IISS as ‘one of the world’s leading security think tanks’. Think Tank Alert ranked it as the top, most-cited non-US-based think tank in 2025; while Transparify ranked it third-largest UK think tank by expenditure, but gave it its lowest rating, describing it as deceptive, on funding transparency.
As for its claim to owe allegiance to no government, back in 2016 the Guardian reported that IISS “has been accused of jeopardising its independence after leaked documents showed it has secretly received £25m from the Bahraini royal family”, noting that leaked “documents reveal that IISS and Bahrain’s rulers specifically agreed to keep the latter’s funding for the Manama Dialogues secret”.
Peter Oborne in Middle East Eye subsequently reported that IISS may have received nearly half of its total income from Bahraini sources during the 2010s. Among its other major funders are Airbus; Lockheed Martin Corporatio; BAE Systems; Raytheon; Boeing; Rolls-Royce and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems.
A Who’s Who, in other words, of the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) – the corporations who make their billions on wars, threats of war and milking the United State’s NATO protection racket.
Now, to be fair to Professor Betz, he has also repeatedly spoken out against the crazy idea – very clearly pushed by the MIC and its political and media puppets – of confronting Russia over its border quarrel with NATO-backed Ukraine. So perhaps, perhaps, he really is an independent free-thinker, rather than just another Talking Had being well-paid to increase tensions, because tensions are good for business.
Less charitably, one has to note that none of his big bucks lobbying friends have distanced themselves from his civil war warnings. Indeed, Gen Sir Richard Kemp –the blatant pro-Zionist apologist for the IDF’s slaughter in Gaza – has weighed in with his own civil war warnings.
Both men are still intimately linked with the top levels of the British Army; it is scarcely credible that they are speaking for themselves, rather than as the mouthpieces for something very much bigger. This would mean that the push for civil war – or at the very least a conviction that it is coming and that, since we can no longer avoid it, we must be prepared for it – is now the position of a dominant faction within British military intelligence. The very deepest part of the Deep State.
If your first response to that idea is ‘thank God’, then do please remember that these people are not on ‘our’ side. They never have been. They represent the current manifestation of an Anglo-Norman upper-class elite who have for a thousand years seen the commoner of these islands as the “swinish multitude”, there to be kept down and systematically and repeatedly robbed, useful if not as ‘hands’ then only as cannon-fodder in their endless City of London wars.
With the sole exception of Prof Betz himself, their latest overt obsession is to push us to war with Russia, in pursuit of which they are actively propagandising for conscription. Aka culling the herd. Well, fuck them!
In any case, regardless of David Betz’s personal motivation in all this, there is absolutely no doubt that his words are being used by an extraordinary influential group, whose backers definitely do want civil war.
From the bottom-feeders who promote Tommy, through Mr. Yaxley-Lennon himself on to Peter Whittle, Triggernometry, the Lotus Eaters and GB News, this is a massive operation. They are all funded by the same groups. All work together to reinforce they narrative and reach.
They are all united in their relentless effort to turn the legitimate grievances of the white working-class and the insecurities of their Muslim neighbours into a civil war which they know would tear this country apart. And, needless to say, they all intend to avoid doing any of the fighting and dying themselves.
Those of us who have noticed this – starting with my own What Lies Behind the English Defence League*, first published way back in January 2012 – have tended to focus overwhelmingly on the Zionist element behind this.
But when one takes into consideration the corporate, US Deep State-dominated lobbies which fund Prof Betz’s career and give him his platform, it becomes necessary to consider whether there is not a second elite lobby at work here.
Could it be that the U.S. Deep State (together with its Joined-at-the-Hip Atlanticist UK counterpart) sees the Europewide civil war of which the Professor speaks so convincingly as being an important way in which to keep the Dollar hegemony up, by pushing its Euro and stealing rivals down?
This, after all, would be of a piece with the U.S. Deep State effort to push the EU, and especially Germany, Italy and France, to commit economic Suicide-by-Russia. It would fit with the push by George Soros’ Open Society Foundation NGOs to help the infiltration of Western Europe by millions of Third World immigrants of military age.
Soros, being one of the “leftist, secular Jews” noticed belatedly by Charlie Kirk, and now even by Tommy Robinson, has long been ideal cover for the CIA’s National Endowment for Democracy. Put very simply, while all the antisemites run around shouting “it’s the Joos”, the American Deep State has been using vast amounts of their taxpayers’ money to subvert their supposed NATO allies.
If Professor Betz is working for anyone, this is who – and their vested interest in helping to unleash “Rivers of Blood” on the streets of Britain and Western Europe is all too clear.
