Ostensibly, modern states have an unassailable advantage against the mass of the population. Where once the mob could reasonably threaten to tear the king from his castle, today the state has overwhelming military superiority against the disarmed population. Speaking in terms of leverage, the state seemingly has the winning hand: it is the sole provider of security, public goods, infrastructure, and the enforcement of contracts — and every member of the public is dependent upon it for these services. A truly praetorian modern state, therefore, should possess a kind of escalation dominance which guarantees its victory in any standoff.
The state’s position, however, is weaker than it might first seem. The sheer size of modern states precludes the possibility of true praetorianism, which requires not only that the state, as an organisation, be technically independent from the population, but also that the people who make it up have a coherent and separate identity which preserves that independence at every level of its operation. An organisation consisting of millions of people cannot achieve this kind of unity, and indeed the vast majority of people who deliver the state’s capabilities at the ground level do not see themselves as parts of a defined organisation, but simply as people like any other who collect a paycheck that happens to come from the government. Such de-corporatised agents of the state cannot always be relied upon to favour the interests of the institution over those of dissenting factions within the population, with whom they may share certain identities or even personal connections.
I would add that unless they enlist an Islamic Militia [far from unthinkable, but probably under another Newspeak name]; the British State’s forces are few, have appalling logistics, and are relatively immobile. The agents of the State are likely to remain loyal to it right up to the moment when they perceive that the State is losing. At which point they are likely try to defect or surrender. Kind of reminds me of the Wehrmacht once the Allies entered Germany proper. The question remains if the families and friends of those murdered and raped by the Muslim invaders with the active and eager collusion of all parties and all levels in the British regime would be inclined to accept such surrender or believe such a change of heart or any false claim of being part of the resistance.
The British State’s Nomenklatura, agents, and drones are primarily based in large cities. Cities themselves are dependent on complex and interconnected logistics lines that are vulnerable. If the government is independent of the people, perforce the people are, or can be, independent of the government. Cities can become cold, dark, hungry, and dry due to actions taken at great remove. If Britain will not defend its own military bases on its own soil [as intimated by the head of MI-5 yesterday]; how can they defend all those choke points? History does not repeat itself, but human greed and stupidity does, especially in ruling classes.
I suspect that your Ministry of Truth or Centre for Information Security, as is the latest formulation, will not like this comment. Fortunately I am not in the British dictatorship.
Subotai Bahadur
tl:dr – Happy sheep seldom rebel.
That Tocqueville was a sharp cookie.
in re: tl:dr
One never can be sure what will make previously happy sheep into unhappy sheep. And indeed, it frequently is the small things that are the greatest provocation. Y’all have tolerated the rape and murder of your men, women, and children; and one would think that you would be up in arms, or working to procure some; yet you are not doing anything. Maybe “Amelia” will trigger something, but we will see. But in any case, in my poor country which is trying to follow your path, if the Brits has done one simple thing there probably would not have been a Revolution. Americans WERE British subjects, loyal to the crown. The crown treated us like we were inferior beings, even though we had fought as British in the French and Indian Wars. Americans did not like the contempt shown to us, but the trigger was “taxation without representation”. Redcoats weren’t raping and pillaging. It was the tax being the last straw. I suspect that if the Crown had had the sense to create a single seat in Parliament covering all the colonies it would have been enough to smooth things over and avoid a revolution.
Personally, I think the choices, in order of likelihood, are for Britain to surrender to Islam or finally fight back. And if they fight back, it will be exceedingly bloody because there are two irreconcilable nations and world views involved. Such is the nature of civil war, and it is worse in the modern world.
It may even involve nukes by either side, against their domestic enemies or against foreign enemies.
We shall see.
Subotai Bahadur
Setting aside Northern Ireland which has an “odd” social structure, the agents of the State are extremely vulnerable.
The Police orificers (NOT a spelling mistake) which the State relies on to enforce its will on an increasingly disillusioned and cynical population have to live among that self same population. The British public is beginning to see the Police as an occupying and hostile power. The population knows where the Police officers live (they are in many cases, their next door neighbour), when they depart for work and when they return and so they are vulnerable to – shall we say – mob justice.
Once enough Police officers are either killed or so severely beaten up, their families intimidated or their homes fire bombed that the individuals concerned decide to resign, then how will the state enforce its increasingly distasteful edicts?
Note that I am not advocating this course of action but eventually, people will come to the conclusion they have nothing left to lose so striking out at those tormenting and oppressing them will be a tempting option.
Also note that I emigrated from the UK almost 20 years ago so am not subject to the same censorship that is applied to the white UK population.
“The State” might, but “The State” is made up of individuals. 1 President/Prime Minister/King is easy to protect. Their family members less so.
As you work your way down the hierarchy you have more and more people to protect.
We have been involved in low-intensity conflicts, resistance suppression and unbalanced fights for most of the last half of the 20th century, and the soldiers on the front lines have learned those lessons.
If the government insists, they will not like what they get.
Sadly the Pimlico Jounral article, or at least that bit of it posted here, leaves out an important factor – it is not the state against “the people” – because “the people”, in the sense of a united community no-longer-exists.
There are different (and opposed) populations in the same country – and the state, for example the police and the courts, are gradually (or not so gradually) switching-sides – well switching-sides if they were ever truly on the side of the native population of various countries.
For example, in Canada if Islamic, and allied leftists, mobs attack counter protestors – the police will arrest the counter protestors (they will arrest the people who have been attacked – not the attackers) – indeed the police will assault the, peaceful (totally peaceful) counter protestors themselves – and the courts will side with the police.
In Belgium the local police ignored Islamic terrorist groups (such as people just over the road from a police station) – including ones responsible for bombings in France, and actively obstructed people who were trying to investigate – as, the local police claimed, such investigations would provoke “the community” (in the same sense of the word “community” as His Majesty King Charles III used in his Christmas broadcast of 2024).
In Britain the then Home Secretary and ex Attorney General (so incredibly well qualified to comment) Suella Braverman (a “women of colour” in modern langauge) repeatedly pointed out that the police in London, and the courts, were treating Islamic, and leftists allied to the Islamic forces (although that alliance will eventually breakdown – as leftist atheism is not compatible with Islam) differently than “right wing” demonstrations.
Police tactics were far more aggressive towards “right wingers” and the courts were far harsher towards “right wingers” – than they were to Islamic forces and to leftists allied to these forces. “Two Tier Policing” and Two Tier “Justice”.
So it is not the state against “the people” in the sense of a united nation (which no longer exists in many Western countries) – it is the “Progressive” state allying itself with rising forces – against the declining historic peoples of various Western nations.
And this does include the United States – as a visit to Dearborn Michigan (and other places) would make clear, there is a new “the people” or “the community” – and the government, including the police, is allied with it. And Dearborn did go through various efforts at “assimilation” – the Republican local government (yes – Dearborn was once a Republican city) tried banning face coverings and head coverings, at least in the police and government, and tried various other assimilation efforts. But it did not prevent the inward migration and natural increase (births) of the new population – so that population eventually started to win elections, and that was the end of the place (the headquaters of the Ford Motor Company – Dearborn is not an unimportant place) as an American city. “Assimilation” that does not including basic beliefs, fundamental principles, is not really assimilation at all.
On the streets the Progressive State can count on large (ever larger) mobs of Islamic, and allied leftist, forces to help the police and other security forces crush dissent. The education system and the media, especially the entertainment media, will (and are) also play their rule on indoctrinating the popluation – and in demonsing dissent.
Yes indeed, the alliance between the Islamic forces and the leftists will, eventually, break down – they will, at some point in the future, fight each other. But that will not help the traditional populations of various Western nations – who will already have been crushed.
The leftist forces will soon, for example, control Congress in the United States – many people, including some people on this site, have not yet grasped just how bad the modern Democrats (including the so-called moderates – witness the Governor of Virginia) have become.
As for Britain – appealing to Parliament or to the Monarch, is already a waste of time. The only response to such desperate appeals is screams of “racist!” and punishment.
By the way – the idea (associated with David Hume) that the state depends on the tacit concent of the people, was never really true.
For example, the French Revolutionary state of the 1790s was not based on active consent (elections were wildly rigged) and nor was it based on tacit consent – on the contrary, there was massive resistance to it in various parts of France.
Most ordinary people detested the new state – with its massive inflation, and arbitrary confiscations of money and property (often from very ordinary people), and its persecution of Christianity. But the new state was well armed and well organized – and crushed all opposition with savage ruthlessness (see William Doyle’s works on this matter) – hundreds of thousands of people were killed.
France is not a small example – it had tens of millions of people, indeed, back then, it had the largest population of any nation in Europe.
Again – the Progressive state (in Britain and other countries – including the United States, witness Portland Oregan and many-other-cities) does NOT have to rely on just “Islamic militias” to back up the forces of the Progressive state.
There are very large numbers of leftists, who control just about every institution – public and private, to back up the Progressive state -and many of these leftists are only too happy to kick in the heads of “right wingers” – meaning kick in the head of anyone who dissents, anyone who is opposed to the Progressive state.
The leftists are de facto allied to the security forces – with training (and so on) weeding out “reactionaries” in the police and so on (especially in Britain).
I think this depends on whether the people are or can be armed.
bobby b – true, and it depends on how well armed the people are. Many of the “rebels” in France in the 1790s were armed with little more than farm tools – they, and their families, were killed (often with sickening sadism – mutilation and so on) and the state has been lying about the whole thing for centuries. Pretending that the Revolution abolished serfdom (which was destroyed by Louis the Tenth – back in the Middle Ages) and so on.
It also depends on how well organised people are – firearms are almost useless in the hands of people who are not well trained and organized, or are weak-of-will.
King Louis XVI was a kindly man – it was he (years before the Revolution) who abolished judicial torture, and ended religious persecution, but he was WEAK – and in politics weakness is punished by death, not only your own death – but the torment and death of the people you love. He refused to kill his enemies, and he did have the chance to do so, so they killed him – and many people he loved. That is politics.
In the United States when “right wingers” (the “Proud Boys”) were attacked comming out of a conference in New York City (a totally unprovoked attack by leftists) the authorities prosecuted the “right wingers” (for the crime of defending themselves) – but did not prosecute the attackers.
It would be the same in most large cities in the United States – and is quite logical, as the attackers are leftists, i.e. allied with modern Progressive government.
It is the same here in Britain.
It does seem to me that the parlous state of the economy is overlooked in these discussions. The UK government is borrowing to pay its monthly bills and that can’t continue indefinitely. The IMF will not help because the deficit is entirely self inflicted, the government is spending money it hasn’t got on things it doesn’t need. Governments need money as well us guns to stay in power, and the lack of the former is more likely to undo them than lack of the later.
All these politicians increasingly advocating “Rejoin the EU without a referendum! Don’t ask the people!” makes me think rhetorically “do they *WANT* to be lynched?”
And then I think: maybe yes they do, they DO want riots in the streets as their excuse to let loose their knee-jerk authoritarianism and crush all dissent.
Who has ‘nothing left to lose’ exactly?
If you have savings, property, directorships, investments, a mortgage, family, a career etc, you have plenty to lose.
In the age where the government and financial institutions can debank you and freeze your assets quite easily if they wish, the bank account, private pension, and mortgage are perhaps more effective tools of containment than blunt force.
What Martin said at 12:52pm. But Martin, you left one word out of your quote, “eventually people will come to the conclusion…” To me the question is how close are we to “eventually”?
I still have a lot to lose. In the next 10 years or so, I suspect my greatest financial losses will be due to inflation and ramped up taxes (“means” testing my Social Security “benefit”). My assumption is that these will cut my current real income in half.
But I will even then still have a lot to lose. If I decide to get more active politically such that TPTB decide I’m a useful target, then all bets are off. They can take everything quite easily through all the means listed here already (debanking, prosecution for every trivial offense, etc). What might I be willing to do then? …apart from the fact that I’ll be over 70 years old at that point and my physical abilities will have declined.
Yet another reason to exercise more, lose a little weight, and get out to the gun range more often! So, the State is doing me a favor by their threat: forcing me to be more of a force in my old age!
Rour le Jour.
Government borrowing has often been discussed on this site.
Governments are not borrowing gold or silver – or, indeed, any commodity money.
The British government is borrowing “money” that it itself creates (via the Bank of England – which it owns) – there is no good reason to create this “fiat” (order, will, whim) “money” and lend it out to “City” instutitions in order to borrow-it-back-again at a higher rate of interest.
It would create no more inflation to just create the fiat “money” and spend it – rather than create it, lend it out, and borrow it back again (at a higher rate of interest) – and then spend it.
Modern governments are both stupid and corrupt – but eventually even they will work this out, and “The City” and “Wall Street” (and so on) will come to an end – as they, to a great extent, depend on this scam (and government debt, under a fiat “money” system, is a scam).
I must stress that I do NOT support such a policy – I am very much a hard money (commodity money) person, money should be something that people choose to value before-and-apart-from its use as money.
But if (if) one has fiat money (which all nations now do – even Switzerland broke the link with sanity, broke it back in the 1990s) there is no point in government borrowing money – none.
The British government, via its Bank of England, creates this fiat “money” – it would create no more inflation to just create this fiat “money” directly and spend it, rather than create it, lend it out (to “The City” institutions) and borrow it back again (at a higher rate of interest) and then spend it.
So the government bond market (and so on) is pointless – pointless under a fiat “money” system.
The government is NOT borrowing gold, silver, or any commodity money.
The financial industry was originally about dealing in Real Savings – the actual sacrifice of consumption.
People would deposit their gold (or silver) and the financial institutions would lend this money to productive industry – they also lent it to government, which was unfortunate (they should not have done that – government should have limited its spending), but it happened.
However, today in such nations as the United States and the Unirted Kingdom there is not much Real Saving (the actual sacrifice of consumption) there is mostly Credit Bubble.
And money is no longer gold or silver – it is fiat (whim – order) that government creates from nothing – via the Central Bank or via the Federal Reserve (neither of which should exist).
It would create no more inflation for government to spend this “money” directly – rather than create it (from nothing) lend it out to financial institutions, and then borrow it back again – and then spend it (which is what it does now).
Who knows, possibly never. Much of the contemporary western middle class are completely unsuited to revolution. They are too economically precarious to have enough independent wealth to support themselves (and the wealth they have is dependent on establishment institutions like banks and pension funds to look after it), largely atomised away from any independent intermediate institutions but also very fond of the remaining materialistic comforts bourgeois society still provide: Netflix, Internet, playstations, uber, justeat, social media and tech products and so on, and given that so much of their activity is done on devices now it is completely traceable.
Martin makes a valuable point – and one made by Aristotle. To Aristotle the foundation of a free polity was the economic independence of its citizens – as independent farmers and independent craftsmen (and so on) – the key being their economic independence.
As Martin makes clear, that society is NOT what we have – so free institutions here are rather unstable, lacking this foundation.
An example in the modern world would be Appenzell Innerhoden – where the Germanic population (yes they were invaders – but it was rather a long time ago, the fall of the Roman Empire) are independent farmers and independent businessmen (making cheese, strong spirits, owning inns – and so on, very much like “Bree” in Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” – Bree being a place older than all the surviving cities and towns of Middle Earth) to this day. And governing themselves by their annual meeting – which has carried on for so many centuries.
And all without slavery – which Aristotle sometimes (sometimes – not all the time) implied was unavoidable.