Savage Wars and Alien Invaders: Powell’s Prophecy – Updated by Professor David Betz

 Fri 3:51 pm +00:00, 20 Jun 2025  2

posted by pete fairhurst 2

Source: https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2025/03/22/savage-wars-and-alien-invaders-powells-prophecy-and-another-guardianista-goose-step/

Robin Tilbrook referenced Professor Betz in Tap’s informative post yesterday, see link at end

And today I saw this interesting article which also references Prof Betz and fleshes out what Betz says

Against the context of populist Enoch Powell and traitorous Labour politicians from the 1960’s

Who are Spermer’s antecedents and soulmates

For the full text see the above link, I’ve not posted it all here

“Post-biological, post-material, post-logical. For leftists, the human race became all of those things long ago. Humans are no longer constrained by the laws of biology, the bounds of matter and the strictures of logic. That’s why leftists insist that the brains of all human groups, Blacks and Whites, men and women, are absolutely identical in their capabilities and potential. Yes, it is true that different groups of human have inhabited very different physical or social environments and been subject to very different evolutionary pressures, but so what? The human brain floated free of biology many millennia ago and now exists in an immaterial realm whence it can shape the mere mundanity of matter as it pleases.

“Filled with foreboding

All that is what leftists think. And here’s how the Jewish libertarian Murray Rothbard (1926-95) condemned their insane ideology:

The egalitarian revolt against biological reality, as significant as it is, is only a subset of a deeper revolt: against the ontological structure of reality itself, against the “very organization of nature”; against the universe as such. At the heart of the egalitarian left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will — in short, that reality can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings. (“Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature,” Modern Age, Fall 1973)

Libertarianism is a heavily Jewish movement that has long collaborated with leftism, actively or inadvertently, but Rothbard cut to the core of leftism in that article. Leftists do indeed believe that “reality” can be “transformed” by “wish or whim.” But what’s going on when reality is recalcitrant and refuses to be transformed? For many decades, leftists have been exercising their wills to transform the lowly position of Blacks in Western societies. But Blacks still excel only at murder, sex-crime and tax-eating, not at math, science and tax-paying. If “the mere exercise of human will” is all that matters, how can this shocking inequality still exist?

For the left, the answer is obvious: because the malevolent will of racists is negating the benevolent will of leftists. That’s why, for the left, it’s so important to crush racism and silence racists. But when I say “for the left,” I mean “for the whole of mainstream politics.” In Britain, the underlying leftism of mainstream politics became completely obvious in 1968, when a storm of hysteria and opprobrium burst on the head of the senior Conservative politician Enoch Powell (1912—98). What was his crime? He had pointed out the obvious future consequences of mass immigration by non-Whites into Britain:

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood”. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the 20th century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal. (Enoch Powell’s speech, 20th April, 1968)

The “Roman” whom Powell was referencing was the great poet Virgil (70-19 B.C.), who wrote these lines in the Aeneid:

Ostia iamque domus patuere ingentia centum
sponte sua, vatisque ferunt responsa per auras:
“O tandem magnis pelagi defuncte periclis!
Sed terrae graviora manent. In regna Lavini
Dardanidae venient; mitte hanc de pectore curam;
sed non et venisse volent. Bella, horrida bella,
et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno.” (Latin text of Book VI of The Aeneid)

Then yawned the hundred gates, and every door,
Self-opening suddenly, revealed the fane,
And through the air the Sibyl’s answer bore:
“O freed from Ocean’s perils, but in vain,
Worse evils yet upon the land remain.
Doubt not; Troy’s sons shall reach Lavinium’s shore,
And rule in Latium; so the Fates ordain.
Yet shall they rue their coming. Woes in store,
Wars, savage wars, I see, and Tiber foam with gore.” (Translation by Edward Fairfax Taylor, 1907)

Powell was profoundly versed in classical literature and had been showered with academic honors before he entered politics. But he didn’t join the treachery he found there, instead remaining loyal to the ordinary Whites who had elected him. In his speech, he was speaking the truth about non-White immigration and expressing the views of the White majority. That’s precisely why Britain’s hostile elite reacted to his words with hysteria and opprobrium. The Times of London, supposedly a bastion of British conservativism and an unsleeping guardian of the national interest, condemned him for making “an evil speech” and said: “This is the first time that a serious British politician has appealed to racial hatred in this direct way in our postwar history.” That is a typically leftist response to the discussion of racial reality. Leftists don’t address facts or logic, but resort immediately to verbal or physical attacks.

Edward Heath (1916-2005), then leader of the so-called Conservative party, also responded in a typically leftist way. He didn’t discuss or debate: he defenestrated. The day after the speech, he threw Powell out of his shadow cabinet. But even as the elite reacted with outrage, the ordinary Whites of Britain reacted with approval. A national poll revealed that 74% of the country agreed with the speech, while only 15% disagreed. The White working-class in particular rallied to Powell’s defence, regarding him as “the first British politician who was actually listening to them.” Dockers and meat-porters in London marched in support of Powell, seeking in vain to influence the political mainstream that supposedly represented them and their interests. Ordinary members of the Conservative party were also overwhelmingly in agreement with Powell. Another senior figure in the party later acknowledged that Powell would have won “by a landslide” if he had stood for leadership of the party and then won “by a national landslide” in a general election.

DINO = Democracy In Name Only

In short, after he made his prophetic speech, Powell became the most popular politician in Britain. And Britain was supposedly a democracy. Powell expressed the views of the majority of voters, but those views were never translated into policy. Why not? The answer is obvious: because in 1968 Britain was a DINO, a Democracy In Name Only. At the time of Powell’s speech, Roy Hattersley (born 1932) was a senior politician in the so-called Labour party, which was founded to champion the White working-class. But it had long since become an enemy of the working-class. Hattersley condemned Powell’s speech with the rest of hostile elite, although he was perfectly well aware that Labour voters overwhelmingly supported what Powell had said. In other words, Hattersley betrayed the ordinary Whites who had elected him and ensured his life of luxury and wealth. He’s openly boasted of his treachery in the Guardian:

Traitors Roy Hattersley and Keir Starmer with their Jewish wives

How are politicians to behave when, having listened, they find themselves in fundamental disagreement with what they have heard? Should I, in 1964, have called for what a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted — the repatriation of all Commonwealth [i.e., non-White] immigrants? [His answer: “No, never.”] (“Politics should be guided by principles, not populism,” The Guardian, 5th May 2013) … For most of my 33 years in Westminster, I was able to resist [my constituents’] demands about the great issues of national policy — otherwise, my first decade would have been spent opposing all Commonwealth immigration and my last calling for withdrawal from the European Union. (“Ideology’s our life, Esther,” The Guardian, 31st July 2013)

That was Britain in the 1960s: a DINO, or Democracy In Name Only. In 2025, Britain is more of a DINO than ever. So are America, Germany, France and the rest of the West. Henry Ford famously said that his customers could have their cars in any color they wanted, so long as it was black. Mainstream politicians in the West believe that voters can have any kind of border policy they like, so long as it involves never-ending and ever-increasing migration by non-Whites from the most corrupt, crime-blighted and disease-ridden countries on Earth.

Leftist lies laid bare: Third-World migration is not good for the economy

In other words, mainstream politicians are traitors.  Enoch Powell wasn’t a traitor, but a prophet. That is why Britain’s hostile elite reacted with such hysteria and opprobrium to his speech. Powell expressed the popular will and prophesied civil war if the popular will continued to be thwarted. The hostile elite responded loud and clear: they would continue to thwart the popular will and maintain course for civil war. In 1968, although civil war was the obvious destination of ethnically enriched Britain, only a heretic like Powell could say so. In 2025, civil war is much closer and even a respectable academic can say so. This is the biography of a respectable academic at King’s College London (KCL):

Professor David Betz obtained his BA and MA at Carleton University, Ottawa and his PhD at the University of Glasgow. He joined the Department immediately after completing my PhD in 2002. His main research interests are insurgency and counterinsurgency, information warfare and cyberwar, propaganda, also civil-military relations and strategy and especially fortifications both historic and contemporary. He was the academic director of the War Studies Online MA for its first five years. (Professor David J. Betz at KCL)

And this is what Professor Betz has said in an article bluntly entitled “Civil War Comes to the West”:

The major threat to the security and prosperity of the West today emanates not from abroad but from its own dire social instability, structural and economic decline, cultural desiccation and elite incompetence which is leading to civil war. It is vital to understand the causes of this and to anticipate the likely conduct and strategic logic of the violent eruptions of civil conflict which loom on the West’s horizon. […]

Factionalisation is another main concern, but extremely heterogeneous societies are not more prone to civil war than very homogenous ones. This is put down to the high ‘coordination costs’ between communities that exist in the former, which mitigate against the formation of mass movements. The most unstable are moderately homogenous societies, particularly when there is a perceived change in the status of a titular majority, or significant minority, which possesses the wherewithal to revolt on its own. By contrast, in societies comprised of many small minorities ‘divide and conquer’ can be an effective mechanism of controlling a population.

In my view, there is no good reason to fault the main thrust of extant theory on civil war causation as described above. The question, rather, is whether the assumption of the conditions which have traditionally placed Western nations outside the frame of analysis of people concerned with large-scale and persistent eruptions of violent civil discord are still valid.

The evidence strongly suggests that they are not. Indeed, as far back as the end of the Cold War some perceived that the culture which ‘won’ that conflict was itself beginning to fragment and degenerate. In 1991, Arthur Schlesinger argued in The Disuniting of America that the ‘cult of ethnicity’ increasingly endangered the unity of that society. This was prescient. […]

To conclude this section, it can be said that a generation ago all Western countries could still be described as to a large degree cohesive nations, each with a greater or lesser sense of common identity and heritage. By contrast, all now are incohesive political entities, jigsaw puzzles of competing identity-based tribes, living in large part in virtually segregated ‘communities’ competing over diminishing societal resources increasingly obviously and violently. Moreover, their economies are mired in a structural malaise leading, inevitably in the view of several knowledgeable observers to systemic collapse.

The intimacy of civil war, its political intensity, and its fundamentally social quality, plus the acute accessibility to attack on all sides of everyone’s weak points can make them particularly savage and miasmic. The Russian Civil War which followed the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 is a particularly good example. It is a form of war in which people suffer raw cruelty and fanaticism not for what they have done but for what they are. […]

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, in my view.

The peculiarity of contemporary Western multiculturalism, relative to examples of other heterogenous societies, is threefold. Firstly, it is in the ‘sweet spot’ with respect to theories of civil war causation, specifically the supposed problem of coordination costs is diminished in a situation where White majorities (trending rapidly toward large minority status in some cases) live alongside multiple smaller minorities.

Secondly, thus far what has been practiced is a sort of ‘asymmetric multiculturalism’ in which in-group preference, ethnic pride, and group solidarity — notably in voting — are acceptable for all groups except Whites for whom such things are considered to represent supremacist attitudes that are anathematic to social order. (“Civil War Comes to the West,” Military Strategy Magazine, Volume 9, Issue 1, summer 2023); my emphasis

In 1968 Enoch Powell prophesied civil war and was driven out of mainstream politics. In 2023 David Betz prophesied civil war too but he wasn’t driven out of mainstream academia. Instead of condemning him and wrecking his career, the left preferred to ignore him. His fascinating and insightful article wasn’t reported in leftist strongholds like the New York Times and Guardian. However, the Guardian has echoed Betz in a recent article of its own, although the paper didn’t realize it was doing so. H.P. Lovecraft said that the most merciful thing in the world is the inability of the human mind to correlate its contents. I say that the most risible thing in the world is the inability of leftists to correlate the contents of their own media.

Sure-fire recipe for civil war: breaking the social contract

The rape-gangs of Rotherham and the slaughter in Southport are two examples among many. But even as leftists loudly profess concern for the welfare of women and girls, the same leftists support Third-World migration that ensures women and girls suffer more and worse violence. That BBC article about the civil war in Sudan had a prominent notice: “Warning: This article contains details of sexual violence that some people may find distressing.” But the same leftists who are “distressed” by “details of sexual violence” in Sudan are also working tirelessly to increase sexual violence in the West.

This is ironic. It’s also insane. And it’s evil. I’ve said before that leftism is best regarded not as an ideology, but as a criminal conspiracy or a mental illness. The criminal conspiracy is conducted by the leftist elite, while the mental illness flourishes among  lumpen-leftists and particularly in leftist groups like Antifa. The evil left and the insane left have sown the wind with ethnic enrichment. The entire West will soon reap the whirlwind of civil war.

 

Starmer buckles under English Democrat legal onslaught