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.