The following could be called ‘interpretive notes.’ I will stay close to what Betz says, but sometimes put things my own way, and insert comments and examples he might not endorse.
Professor Betz sees Britain headed for civil war. Early on in his talk, he mentions Karl Popper’s observation that unlimited toleration leads to the destruction of toleration. It’s true and I’ve said it myself many times. Betz then states that Britain today is the condition Samuel Francis referred to as “anarcho-tyranny.” And what might that be? Francis explains:
. . . “anarcho-tyranny,” is essentially a kind of Hegelian synthesis of what appear to be dialectical opposites: the combination of oppressive government power against the innocent and the law-abiding and, simultaneously, a grotesque paralysis of the ability or the will to use that power to carry out basic public duties such as protection or public safety. And, it is characteristic of anarcho-tyranny that it not only fails to punish criminals and enforce legitimate order but also criminalizes the innocent.
There are plenty of recent state-side examples of this anarcho-tyranny that I needn’t rehearse if you follow current events. (Exercise for the reader: mention some of them in the comments below.)
Back to Britain. it’s “broken,” Betz notes, because of ‘factionalization,’ a condition of society in which the titular group (nation, tribe, etc.) splits into subgroups that battle one another and work to advance their own interests to the detriment of the common good. Betz proposes a spectrum of factionalization. I see it like this, using his terms.
Normal politics –> contentious politics –> issue factionalism –> polar factionalism –> militancy –> civil war.
Normal politics is the state in which the government in power is recognized as legitimate. USA politics is not normal by this criterion: Hillary Clinton, among others, has questioned the legitimacy of the Trump administration. Continuing with the USA as an example, we are well beyond normalcy (broadly recognized legitimacy of the government in power) and deeply embroiled in bitter contention over particular issues (Second Amendment rights, abortion, death penalty, etc.) — this is issue factionalism — and involved as well in polar factionalism. The latter takes the form, in Betz’s words, of “symbolic identity cleavages.” This is what I have referred to as tribalism and identity politics: whites versus blacks; Muslims versus Jews; etc. Militancy too has reared its ugly head here and in Britain. Assassinations would be booked under this head.
Next stop civil war.
According to Betz, Britain is at the polar stage. Many of ‘the people,’ as opposed to the elites, accept the Great Replacement theory, according to which elites aim to replace the white population with ‘persons of color.’ The British people’s grievances are mainly two: two-tiered justice and media bias. We too complain about those two. Responses include a peasant revolt against the elites, increasing ethnic Balkanization, and white flight.
If civil war erupts, it will lead to a siege of ethnically Balkanized urban areas in the form of attacks by paramilitary forces on the infrastructure in non-native enclaves. The political object would be to compel the non-natives to leave. The strategy would be to make make conditions intolerable for the non-natives. The tactics would involve the use of simple tools such as angle grinders, sledge hammers, and acetylene torches. The central premise: the instability of modern urban conditions.
Targets would include fuel distribution systems. Gas stations, for example, being flammable, are easy to attack and destroy and difficult to rebuild, especially since in a state of civil war insurance funds would not be available. What’s more, an attack on fuel distribution is also an attack on food distribution. Cutting off the enemy’s food supply is traditional siege craft.
Britain is a powder keg waiting to explode. Either Britain will, thanks to ever-increasing Balkanization, cease to exist as “a coherent cultural entity” but continue to limp along; or it will succumb to hot civil war. The three main belligerents are the armed forces, the elite-run government, and the people. When push comes to shove, and shove comes to shoot, will the military stick with the government or side with the people? If the armed forces support the elite-run government, then the elites prevail over the people. If, on the other hand, the military sides with street over the elite, then the elite go to Madame Guillotine.
A third possibility is that the military remain neutral as between the elite and the street.
Betz rightly points out that Balkanization, made inevitable by wide-open immigration, was an elite choice, a very unwise one that went against the will of the people. Re: immigration, the elite beat the street into the dirt.
We here in the States have a good chance of evading Britain’s fate because of one man, and one man only: Donald J. Trump.