Can Britain avert a civil war?

Back in May, I created some upset with a piece entitled “Why mass deportations are a non-starter”. I wrote:

One of the reasons mass deportations is a non-option is because the state will face major pushback on three fronts. You will recall a while back when a deportation operation in Glasgow was halted by a mob of leftists. I think we would see far larger coordinated efforts to frustrate any concentrated government action. Just from an optics and economics perspective, you can’t deploy full riot squads every time you detect an illegal immigrant.

Then we should recall the Harehills riots last year when the entire community turned out to prevent the authorities taking a child into care. Deportations are a non-starter in majority ethnic areas.

The third front is the media. If we set about a campaign of mass deportations, we will likely see a number of blunders the media will exploit, and the news will be wall to wall sob stories. The effect of this in mobilising popular opposition should not be underestimated. Images of families being dragged from their homes by uniformed men is too rich for the blood of the average normie. They might want something done about immigration, but the urge to virtue signal will soon assert itself and mass deportations will lose popular support. It’s just not the way to go about it. Dawn raids should mostly be reserved for terror suspects and criminals who are an imminent danger to the public.

Six month on, and I stand by what I wrote. Britain is not ready for such a policy and it looks like Trump is reaching the limits of what is possible. As it happens, we’re able to see in realtime what such an approach looks like.

America has stepped up its ICE raids in which have seen protests escalate into violent disorder. Anti-ICE radicals are using social media apps to dox, threaten, and terrorise ICE agents and their families. Just a couple of week ago, mobs were blockading ICE compounds and sabotaging vehicles. ICE is now deploying teargas against protestors and calling for National Guard back up.

As yet, the National Guard can’t be deployed, as an appeals court ruled on Saturday. The decision to prevent the troops from protecting federal property or going on patrol comes after federal judge April Perry ruled on Thursday to temporarily block the national guard deployment for at least two weeks, finding no substantial evidence that a “danger of rebellion” is brewing in Illinois.

This spectacle has not made for good headlines or good optics. It looks like the National guard will have to hold off for now. The left wing narrative is exactly what you’d expect. Some are comparing Trump to Hitler while others take the line that deploying the military for a civilian enforcement operation is a bridge too far.

Of course, it’s not unprecedented for US troops to be deployed in times of unrest. During the Los Angeles riots in 1992, George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act, deploying about 4,000 Army and Marine Corps troops, alongside federalised National Guard units, to support local law enforcement. More recently, Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act during the George Floyd protests, but did not formally do so. Active-duty troops (including the 82nd Airborne) were staged near Washington DC, and National Guard units were deployed in multiple states (over 40,000 Guard members across 34 states). In DC, Guard troops and federal law enforcement cleared protesters from Lafayette Square for a presidential photo-op.

For Britain, though, it would be unprecedented. The only time in living memory the British Army was deployed in a civilian setting was during the Troubles. It’s not how we do things.

To my mind, any attempt to mount ICE style deportation raids at scale would immediately blow up into widespread unrest, especially following operations in Molem areas. The police are simply not equipped for such a challenge to their authority. I take the view that if ever we were going to start a programme of mass forced removals then we’d be starting a low level civil war, and there’s be no way to bring it under control without deploying overwhelming force, likely calling on civilian reserves we lack the capacity to mobilise.

As such, any suggestion that we should implement such a programme is for the birds, especially given how wet the media is and, how indoctrinated the average MP is. It does not become a realistic prospect without the situation becoming a magnitude worse than it is presently.

I think, though, the time will eventually come. I think soft remigration measures are inevitable, but the culmination of decades of misrule will eventually come to a head, and unless something changes significantly, civil war seems unavoidable. We’re missing all the off-ramps to avoid one. As a bare minimum, a functioning country needs a common civic identity which is impossible when there are no controls on immigration and no demands placed on foreigners to integrate.

Ultimately, when you leave sectarianism to fester for long enough, you reach a point where the choice is either remigration or civil war, and since the establishment would rather not have a contentious debate about remigration, we will sleepwalk to civil war.

The second element is the absence of consent for what’s been done to us. Nobody asked the English if we consented to our ethnic replacement. Now that’s increasingly likely we’ll become a minority in our own homeland, more people than ever are deciding they will not passively accept it. People are beginning to recognise that racial collectivisation is their only guarantee of survival as Britain disintegrates.

We should not forget that immigration is not the only pressure on Britain. We’re also seeing rapid deindustrialisation and there’s been no significant developments in energy to take the strain off the grid. Blackouts are still looming. Meanwhile, living conditions can only worsen, and the public mood sours year on year. I ever don’t recall seeing as many protests as we’ve seen in recent years, and I don’t see them remaining peaceful while Starmer is in charge.

What seals our fate in my estimations, is the trajectory of British politics. The polls all suggest a thumping Reform victory in 2029. While we can take polls with a pinch of salt, it seems highly unlikely that Reform is capable of forming a functioning, viable government and will not be able to deliver the kind of change they promise. As much as anything, their “policies” often fall far short of what is necessary. We’ve already been through the mill of a popular Tory government that promised much and delivered nothing, and a repeat performance might well be enough to convince the public (once and for all) that voting is a sham. Once that sinks in, all bets are off.