Definitions

First I want to clarify two type of governmental change (other than by the normal election process) so that we are not discussing things at cross purposes and have a clear distinction in mind when subsequently talking about regime change.

Coup D’état

A Coup D’état is from the French meaning a blow against the State. The coup plotters do not wish to change the governmental structures or institutions – or at least not so drastically that the state is fundamentally different from its current form. The coup plotters want the power for themselves and to run the government along “traditional” lines.

Such coups are usually but not exclusively carried out by the Military (e.g. Juan Peron in Argentina, the Military Junta in Burma, the various Egyptian Army led coups such as Anwar Sadat and subsequent military leaders, Gadaffi in Libya, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Assad in Syria etc.) and their claim is that they are taking over the reins and levers of power from a non responsive and/or corrupt government.

The continuity of the government employees and civil servants means that the plotters do not require the detailed and specialist skills needed to manage the country – the current employees can be left to do this – but they will formulate high level policy and appoint their colleagues to head the various departments according to their own skills and interests. If the Military are the coup plotters, then they will have man management and administrative skills and hence the transition of power will be relatively smooth and with not too much inconvenience to the general population. Thus, such a coup will be unlikely to be resisted by the majority of the population and provided that the essentials of life are not badly disrupted (food, water, sanitation, medical care etc.) for a prolonged period, the plotters can expect little resistance.

Hence, such coups, if carried out swiftly and without too much chaos are generally (but not exclusively) not very disruptive to the general population, though of course, the leading members of the previous government are likely to be executed to eliminate any leaders of potential resistance to the plotters. Exile is foolish as this will allow the exiled personnel to be largely out of reach of the new regime and the exiles can work in the country of their exile to ferment a counter coup/train a resistance army/raise cash and other support, both material and moral. Similarly, imprisonment is unlikely to be a viable option, so executions are the most reliable way of dealing with potential counter coup leaders.

Revolution

Revolution seeks to replace in its entirety the current government and institutions and impose an entirely new form of government with the country run for their sole benefit of the revolutionaries under the guise of a better life etc. “For the People” (and who could object to that). Any Communist takeover of any country serves as the best example of this process, starting with the October 1917 Russian Revolution. They all follow a depressingly similar pattern and although the minor details differ, the end result is the same.

The current institutions will be allowed to remain but totally hollowed out and the revolutionaries will be appointed as heads of the departments (particularly the Police and Security Services and the accompanying secondary services such as prisons).

Since revolutionaries rarely have either the training or skills to administer the country, their philosophy is not based on practical reality or takes into account human nature, then they are certain to face opposition from the general population as normal life breaks down. Food in particular will be in short supply and/or unavailable. This will engender protests, riots etc. and a severe crackdown from the revolutionaries, using the Police and Security Services newly under the command of the revolutionary appointees to arrest and eliminate any political enemies (which will be a very broadly defined category) and will encompass almost the entire population but especially the educated, teachers, doctors, engineers and the heads of the Police, Military and Security Services (for obvious reasons). 

Naturally, with a new form of government, a new set of laws will be needed and all the old laws will be swept away to be replaced with a draconian set of laws required to “support” the revolution.

With the power and force in the hands of the revolutionaries, the usual and predictable mass slaughter and deaths from famine, civil war and civil disturbances will take place.

The Current State of Britain

Firearms

The political process in Britain has not represented the wishes of the population for at least a century and the mistrust of the political class (not necessarily the hereditary ruling class) for the general population can be dated back to the Russian Revolution in 1917 (Fun fact – due to the Russian Calendar not being based on the Gregorian calendar the “October” revolution in the Gregorian timeline actually occurred in November for the Russians).

It is surprising just how closely related to each other the Royalty of Europe actually were – the Czarina was related to Queen Victoria (Alexandra of Hesse and Rhine was her granddaughter) and their overthrow and subsequent murders shocked the Establishment. If the peasants could do that in Russia, then it could happen here and there was only two laws on the books relating to firearms (the Gun Licenses Act of 1870 requiring that anyone using a gun outside of the curtilage of their homes required a license, costing 10 shillings purchased at a Post Office, and was a revenue gathering measure. The Pistols Act of 1903 which prohibited people under age 18 from purchasing a pistol and required a purchaser to obtain a gun license unless the pistol was solely to be held and used within the curtilage of their home. It was introduced to “save the children” as a safety measure though there was little to no evidence that children were being harmed or killed by access to pistols). Note that ALL other firearms were under no restriction and since the Maxim Gun had been developed and was on sale, rifles, including self-loading, all manner of shotgun actions etc. were freely available for purchase without restriction, provided that you had the cash to purchase them, of course. The only category of firearm not fully developed were pistol calibre submachine guns. The trench warfare spurred on their development and the Germans in particular with the Bergmann were the main users. 

Following WW1 where Britain had slightly over 4 million men in the military and since many of them brought back captured weapons of all descriptions as souvenirs then the country would have been awash with the most modern and up to date weaponry of the time.

The Russian revolution and the murder of the Czar and his family prompted the 1920 Firearms Act which was sold as a crime prevention measure under the guise of the secretive Blackwell Committee. This resulted in the law which required all firearms (except shotguns – only those ruffians and uncouth Americans used shotguns for warfare – and air weapons) to be licensed and anyone wanting to possess firearms had to apply to the Chief Constable of his area stating the type, calibre and the amount of ammunition that they required to purchase and keep. In short, the Establishment lied, misled both Parliament and the country about the intent of the legislation (i.e. the elimination of firearms in private hands). They imposed a sixty year confidentiality order on the deliberations of the committee and it was not until 1981 that the documents relating to the committees decisions were released for public scrutiny. With a few minor revisions this legislation formed the basis of the law until the various amendments and acts were consolidated into the 1968 Firearms Act, although the act was amended to eliminate various categories of firearms such as self-loading rifles, pistols following the Hungerford and Dunblane incidents respectively.

Note that at the time “crimes” involving firearms prior to 1920 amounted to about 100 a year and most of them were “armed trespass”. Sounds scary but as wild animals and birds, by definition, belonged to no one then landowners could not “own” them. Pheasants, partridges etc. were raised on estates and released for sporting purposes by landowners but as there were wild pheasants etc. then once released were considered to be wild. Poaching is not an offence in the UK but armed trespass was a catch all category to prosecute poachers. Trespass was a civil matter and unless you persistently and repeatedly trespassed, it wasn’t worth the landowner’s time or cash to pursue this through the courts. Hence the “100 prosecutions and crimes” involving firearms.

Two notable changes to the 1920 Act need to be noted – the 1937 Firearms Act which was accompanied by an arms amnesty when about 1.5 million “illegally” held firearms were handed in including a lot of Lee Enfields and other firearms which must have pleased Hitler. One of the changes was that if a Chief Constable refused the grant or renewal of a Firearms License then previously it was reviewed by a magistrates Court. The magistrates were not told of the intent of the 1920 Act (i.e. the elimination of firearms in the hands of the public, although the Chief Constables were informed and were on board with the intent) and saw no reason why people with no criminal record and were “fit persons” to possess firearms so usually upheld the appeal and overturned the Chief Constables refusal. The 1937 Act made any appeal subject to Crown Court review which entailed much greater expense and necessitated the employment of a Barrister to handle the appeal.

Fun fact. Before WW1 Britain decided that they would replace both the .303 cartridge and the Lee Enfield rifle which resulted in the Pattern P14. Before full scale adoption of the rifle and new cartridge could occur, WW1 kicked off and the British decided to stick with the tried and tested Lee Enfield/.303 – a good decision as the combination held up well under trench warfare conditions – but in case British industry could not produce enough rifles, they contracted with the USA to produce the P14 which the USA modified to use the .30-06 and adopted it as the M17. 1,243,500 P14 rifles were produced but were only used for training and some (very few) were used for sniping as it was a very accurate rifle. The rest remained in storage. (Note that 2,486,000 M17’s were produced. This was more than the available Springfield ’03’s at the time and was the rifle used by Sgt. Alvin York).

During the summer of 1940 when Germany was about to invade England, the Home Guard was formed and they paraded with what they could – broomsticks with carving knives tied to the end, shotguns and if anyone had an illegally possessed rifle, that was overlooked. The Home Guard was not fully organised until late spring 1941 and those P14’s remained in storage. In other words, had the Germans invaded, the British state would have regarded it as merely a change in Government (just like a General Election) and considered this to be the lesser evil than arming the British people.  I have no doubt that the establishment would have behaved no better than the other continental governments when it came to collaboration with the Germans and the fate of Jews (as well as quite a lot of British people) would have been no different than their continental equivalents.

The next change was the 1968 Act which was prompted by the murder of three policemen by Harry Roberts in Shepherds Bush in 1966 using a Luger pistol to kill 2 and his accomplice used a .38 Webley revolver to kill a 3^rd. Roberts served in the Army in Malaya (during the Malayan “emergency”) and was involved in criminal activity his entire life. The murders occurred 8 months after Roy Jenkins, the Home Secretary, had managed to finally get the death penalty abolished in 1965. What to do?

Recall that pistols had been licensed and controlled since 1920 whereas shotguns had not so as “something had to be done, this is something, let’s do it” the 1968 Act brought shotguns under shotgun certificate control – although the certificate permitted the holder to possess shotguns with no restriction on numbers or types (yet).

Consistent with these laws, there was a steady decline in the numbers of people holding and possessing firearms of any description until now, over 100 years of the most stringent controls and restrictions, very few people in Britain possess a firearm of any type. Accompanying this was a persistent and relentless vilification of firearms and the people holding them and the police, every time that a crime involved a firearm occurred emphasised that the sole source of illegally held and used firearms was the legal trade and firearms certificate holders. To anyone knowledgeable about firearms, then (for example) after all handguns were banned in 1997 after Dunblane, it would appear curious that handguns developed and manufactured AFTER 1997 were increasingly found in the hands of criminals … Odd, that.

I have been at pains to describe this process to impress upon you that:

• There are VERY few holders of Firearms Certificates in the UK
• Those that DO Possess them are under extreme scrutiny of the police and are “running scared”. The validity of a Firearms Certificate is 3 years and the Police inspect the firearms at renewal.
• That the 100 years of counting every firearm manufactured, imported, sold, transferred or disposed of the police know where every legally held firearm is and in the event of any sort of civil unrest (or even the threat of civil unrest) then I have absolutely zero doubt that the police would confiscate each and every firearm legally held (the illegally held ones in the hands of those bent on mischief are a different matter).
• And most importantly, the Government (both politicians and the Civil Servants) do not trust the population. Your deep state is a mere amateur compared with the British equivalent.

There is no “We”

The above account of the destruction of the rights of anyone wishing to possess firearms was only possible because 100 or more years ago, the population of Britain was homogenous, very few foreigners or immigrants were present (the one exception were the French Huguenots – protestants that got the hell out of Catholic France and away from persecution who, as they were of the same religion and had the same cultural values so integrated well and successfully). Hence there was trust in the government and the ruling institutions so it was relatively easy to lie to the population and introduce various types of laws.

Mass immigration only started after WW2. This was driven by a number of factors:

• Britain was economically bankrupt, having been bled white by the costs of both WW1 and WW2
• Its industries were in a worn out and decrepit state due to the all-out war effort, wear and tear on the machinery with no prospect of replacement or upgrading to more modern and efficient equipment
• Everything not related to manufacture or agriculture was earmarked for export to earn currency to pay off the war debt so there was little to no luxuries to be had in post war Britain
• With low productivity due to the outdated manufacturing equipment and the (relatively) high wages, export goods were expensive in those markets that would accept them
• The US Marshall Plan only applied to those countries on continental Europe that needed their industries rebuilt after the destruction of WW2 – principally Germany who, as their factories were totally destroyed could rebuild them with the latest and best equipment (similarly, Japan).
• The breakup of the British Empire (driven by USA pressure) and the formation of The Commonwealth – which gave all peoples in the former Empire the same residential rights to live “in the Commonwealth” which included Britain

The first immigrants were blacks from the Caribbean brought over on a liner called the Windrush as cheap labour and followed by Asians from India and what would become Pakistan and Bangladesh to work in the textile industries. Naturally, chain migration developed and with large families, letting in one couple meant that their parents could join them, followed by their parent’s children, brothers and sisters and their fathers and mothers in law and their children … but you get the idea.

Travel was difficult and expensive in the late 1940’s and 1950’s so initially there were comparatively few immigrants from that source but with cash flowing from Britain to their families back “home” this became for the families back in South Asia increasingly affordable.

Nowadays, there are cities where the British are in a minority and where the culture and language is Pakistani/Indian. Leicester is over 90% Asian and there are many no-go areas for whites in many cities. I read one report that a Pakistani man had been in the UK for forty years and needed a translator as he couldn’t speak English. Indeed, why should he. He lives in a Pakistani country (and I have read and heard reports that many Muslims consider Britain to be a Muslim country as the evidence of their own eyes says it is …). Whites should move to a white country if they don’t like it.

Recently he is putting out YouTube videos saying in essence “Wait a minute …” but in this one he essentially says that although the law says that “minorities” are to be treated differently and sentenced more leniently, don’t worry, I’m SURE that they won’t misuse the legislation. So now the British are second class citizens in their own country.

Just reading the titles of his videos will give you a flavour of how out of control and unresponsive to the electorate the government is.

I could overwhelm you with examples of how the invaders are treated with kid gloves, given benefits greatly in excess of what a British citizen would receive in Britain but I’ll compile a separate document listing just some of the links to newspaper articles and other sources that you can peruse at your leisure.

However, to summarise just some of the problems allowed and encouraged by the Government, politicians and the Establishment:

• Political prisoners – look up Tommy Robinson. His autobiography, (Enemy of the State is available as a download on www.OceanofPDF.com) details the harassment by the government of him because of his anti-Muslim stance and as I mentioned, the Black belt Barrister has a few videos about Robinson. He has been repeatedly arrested and charged under the most spurious reasons and held in prisons with large Muslim populations where he is in grave danger of being murdered. Not a concentration camp exactly but if Robinson were to die then …
• Mass Immigration – 16% of males that would be eligible by their age to be conscripted are foreign born. Of those born and raised in Britain, an unknown percentage have dual nationality and if conscription was being proposed would leave the country or otherwise disappear (as sleeper cells?). No great loss but any fighting would fall on those white British males only.
• High levels of crime. A perusal of any British online newspaper will show that more than half of the violent crimes and murders are committed by people with a much better sun tan than you or I, though if they were born in the UK from recent immigrants then they are classified as British, though without any of the characteristics and behaviour, mindset or attitudes of a British person. If the ethnicity is not mentioned and the comments are turned off on that article then it is a Muslim or immigrant that committed the crime (usually violence or murder). Of course, the solution is to ban British people from carrying pocket knives … A disproportionate number of crimes are committed by our “Newly minted British immigrants”. (I need a sarcasm font). [We all do – ed.]
• Hiding crime. The Police and government deliberately fudge crime figures. Two examples. If 50 cars are broken into in a car park, then that is one crime because clearly only one person committed all the break ins. Murder. Murder is classified as premeditated killing and manslaughter as a spur of the moment or momentary loss of control thing. However, I have seen clearly premeditated and not a sudden loss of temper killings classified as the lower offence of manslaughter. BUT, it is not recorded as either murder or manslaughter unless someone is convicted of the crime. So, I could come to your house, kill you and butcher you up into oven ready joints of meat, grind the less desirable cuts into hamburger meat and leave you stacked up on the dining room table with your head on top of the pile with an apple in your mouth but it will be recorded as a “suspicious death” until I (or someone) is convicted of the crime. In reality, only about 25% of all murders are brought to trial and convictions result so any figures for murder in the UK need to be taken with a massive shovel full of salt. The press and TV broadcasters (Including the BBC – the Biased Broadcasting Corporation or the Tony Blair Broadcasting Corporation – take your pick) are under the control of the Government and parrot the Government line – unless it is a Conservative government when they can’t do right for doing wrong.
• Benefits – the immigrants are a massive and ongoing drain on the public purse, not only for payments for housing, living expenses and support to learn English, help with education, finding jobs etc. As a “for example” south Asian families marry their cousins to keep the bride’s dowry cash in in the family and the repeated in breeding means that a high percentage of their children are born with congenital defects, running at about 3 times the rate of whites. This puts a strain on both the medical services, social workers and of course, since the system was set up to provide support for whites only, then they will claim free cars, extra cash and carers to help out in the home. A hidden and not obvious cost. Plus of course, their lack of skills needed in a first world country, their lack of English language and the costs of providing accommodation and “benefits” far in excess of anything a British person could expect.
• Parliament flatly refusing to do anything to address the concerns of the British people. Dismissed as populism (i.e. what the majority of the population wants). Starmer flatly refuses to withdraw from the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) – as if Britain was like the Soviet USSR before the ECHR legislation was introduced. It is this legislation which is the foundation of all the stupid decisions protecting criminals and illegal invaders.
• A highly politicised police force. Robert Peel’s nine Principles of Policing is as dead as the dinosaurs in Britain and the police are acting as the uniformed enforcers of the Left-Wing Labour party and behave more like the Sturm Abteilung (SA) in Nazi Germany. This includes beating up, for example, Tommy Robinson and arresting people outside abortion clinics who are silently praying in their heads, calling in on old ladies who make mean remarks about Labour Councillors on line, although no law was broken but warning her to police her thoughts (very Orwellian 1984 behaviour). Compare and contrast the treatment of Muslim rioters, Just Stop Oil protestors and other ecological “warriors” and British “far right” people who peacefully demonstrate. Oh, and of course, the Muslim “grooming” (a politically correct word for rape) gangs in EVERY major city in the UK that the police carefully ignored, denied and stonewalled any and every question about this process for well over 20 years (that is twenty in case you think I made a typing error).
• A Judicial system that accepts any excuse by an illegal invader along the lines of “the dog ate my homework” to avoid deportation and these frankly ludicrous excuses are accepted.
• The breakdown in societal norms. There is no unifying vision of Britishness, even among the British white population. Like the USA, there is a lack of religion (peace – you have to admit that the restraining influence and taught morality of formal religion restrains the population and both countries of, say 1950 were much better places to live in) and now, with drugs, the “alternative” lifestyles (gay, transsexual which is another set of protected classes – below Muslim, of course) etc. there are many subsets where anything goes means that the population is fragmented. Those who choose a life of indolence, drug taking and crime, those that want a decent life for their kids and the much put upon “middle class” all have differing demands of the Government and all have the same right to vote (as do the illegal immigrants and the Muslims that vote along religious lines. You think Muslim women that have a right to vote will vote other than how their husbands tell them to vote?) and there is no voting your way out of this mess.

The country is fragmented and thanks to Britain being a densely populated country, the news services are localised and it is difficult to find out in detail what is happening in other parts of the country. As a for example, one company I worked for had me working in Birmingham for weeks on end and in the evenings, I’d watch the local (to Birmingham) news. I was convinced that Birmingham was a cess pit of violence, but if I returned home at the weekend and/or was back in the office for a few weeks, then of course, my home town became the cess pit of violence and unless it was a particularly brutal murder or an immigrant was the victim of the crime, I wouldn’t hear of the incident in other parts of the country. It is deliberate deception.

The Ruling Classes

There are two ruling classes in the UK: Parliament and politicians, and the Establishment/deep state.

Both are left wing, the politicians ranging from left-wing (the Conservatives who have conserved nothing except the policies and laws of the previous left-wing Labour Government) to outright communism/socialism “Progressive” policies of the current and previous Labour Governments. The civil servants all have been trained in Common Purpose and are of left-wing orientation and as they select their own personnel, ensure that only those on board with their philosophy and aims are recruited, promoted and are allowed to formulate policy.  It is a soothing fiction that parliament thinks up laws and/or formulates policies. The politicians rotate their roles at frequent intervals and rely on their department civil servants to advise them on policy and how the department runs. As a “for example” following the murders, terrorism and crimes committed by immigrants, the public wants an end to unlimited immigration and the death penalty reinstated. The Home Office (that controls policing and internal law and order in the UK) will thwart any attempt to do so. Y’see, the ECHR controls such rights and as that court will not allow the death penalty, then their hands are (conveniently) tied. Similarly, freedom of movement within the EU is a foundational principle and right and therefore as the UK is bound by the decisions of the (non-elected) ECHR, then nothing can be done and it is our obligation to accept them, and ensure that they have all the rights conferred by the ECHR, so nothing can be done. Never mind, in 18 months to 2 years, that Minister will be moved onto another department in a cabinet reshuffle so rinse and repeat. The civil servants have 20 to 30 years in the role, the Minister a few months.

It is pointless to play poker if you are not going to change the cards in your hand, only reshuffle them and especially of your hand contains jokers … Einstein never said repeating the same actions and expecting a different result is madness but whoever did, must have observed the British establishment.

One BIG problem is that the UK is governed by foreigners that do not have the interests of the UK in mind. A (very) partial listing follows.

Rishi Sunak is Indian, a multi-millionaire and of the Brahmin caste which tells you all you need to know and although born in Britain his parents are of “East African” descent (parents are Kenyan and Tanzanian). He has dual citizenship. He was the last leader of the Conservative party. is responsible for handing out visas to Indian people from India like candy on Halloween and the number of nominally legal immigrants that came from India under his watch is a closely guarded secret but India keeps agitating for higher numbers of visas in return for trade concessions and they are virtually automatically granted. He did the square root of naff all about illegal immigration. From his Wikipedia entry:

In 2019 the Conservative Party and Boris Johnson pledged to reduce net migration below 250,000 per year, but Sunak said in 2023 that the priority was not to reduce legal immigration but to stop illegal immigration.  Long-term net migration to the United Kingdom (the number of people immigrating minus the number emigrating) reached a record high of 764,000 in 2022, with legal immigration at 1.26 million and emigration at 493,000. Of the 1,218,000 legal migrants coming to the UK in 2023, only 10% were EU Nationals.

You cannot take half a million British people out of the country and replace them with 1.2 Million non-British people and hope to keep Britain as British. The immigrants will vote along ethnic and religious lines, swamping the indigenous British populations preferences.

Kemi Badenoch is “British” (Her mother had travelled from Nigeria to the UK to give birth in St Teresa’s private hospital before the British Nationality Act 1981 abolished automatic birthright citizenship for those born in the United Kingdom, and then returned to Nigeria shortly after Badenoch was born). She spent her first 16 years in Nigeria absorbing British culture, mores and norms … NOT! Apparently, she is a competent politician (or so it has been reported) but her outlook, roots and loyalties must inevitably be African. She is now leader of the Conservative party.

Suella Braveman is Kenya/Mauritius parentage, not British, and her parents immigrated in the 1960’s. It is unlikely that she has a British outlook on life.

Priti Patel is of Ugandan Asian descent and although born in the UK, her family upbringing is unlikely to be traditionally British in outlook.

All the above are Conservative MP’s. On the other side of the house, Labour has:

David Lammy – so thick you could brainwash him with a damp flannel and Foreign Secretary. He’s committed several faux pas and his origins are Guyanese – born in the UK so as British as you are … His Wikipedia entry makes for depressing reading.

Diane Abbot – a fat brainless waste of a pair of underpants and has hung around politics for a long while, retaining her position in the government by shagging the leader of the Labour party though it is likely that Starmer finds her either too unattractive or she has too much dirt on him to get rid of her. Her Wikipedia entry lists and details her left-wing stance on just about anything and everything.

Both Lammy and Abbot are as thick as two short planks and I would not employ them at MacDonald’s, even as floor sweepers.

For a list of the foreign origins of the British MP’s here is the Wikipedia entry.

Similarly OFSTED (The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills) has just appointed Muslim as its head. OFSTED formulates school curricula and inspects schools to ensure that those requirements are met. Guess how that will turn out.

The Surveillance State

I hope that by now, you realise that the British politicians and the State do not trust the British people and that they are desperately trying to keep a lid on the pressure cooker.

They rely a lot on keeping everyone under surveillance and tracking anything that may be considered “subversive”. This has been going on for a long time. I’ll give you an example dating back to 1980. Ragnar Benson published a book called Survival Poaching. Since I was still in the Territorial Army (similar to but not exactly equivalent to your National Guard) after my regular service – I must have been stupid – and had an interest (still do!) in that area, I tried to source a copy from a specialist bookshop in Wales but was told it was only available to Police and/or Service Personnel if their commanding officer authorised the purchase on headed notepaper and could be checked by them. I decided not to bother but years later found an on-line copy, downloaded it and printed it out. I can forward you a copy if you want. It might prove useful to have to hand if TSHTF. I recommend it.

Similarly, a lot of the technical books that I wanted to read and/or purchase were unavailable to civilians. If I was in the UK, nowadays I would never order or borrow from the local library anything considered controversial and even to possess some of the not terribly controversial books I now own would be unwise. Similarly, I would not attempt to download them from the internet.

The internet is monitored by the SIS (Secret Intelligence Service or, as it was known in times past, MI5 – Military Intelligence 5 which operates solely within the UK as opposed to MI6 which operates outside of the UK – the “spies”) and thanks to operating against the IRA are likely among the top security services in the world. I would put Mossad and what was the KGB ahead of them. For a highly sanitised account of their operational methodology, this is a good one to read, Soldier Spy by Tom Marcus.

I have it in hard copy format, bought for cash from a second-hand bookshop. It was published in 2016 so I have no doubt that since that time, the emphasis has changed from monitoring Muslim extremists and is now more focussed on “right wing extremists” – a VERY broad category indeed. SIS can and will devote a LOT of effort when instructed to do so on “people of interest” and employ any and every dirty trick to infiltrate any group or organisation that comes to their attention.

Of course, the USA with the FBI and CIA (yes, I know the CIA is not meant to be deployed in the USA homeland but if you believe that they are not operating clandestinely right now, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn of sale. Small denomination, used notes only in a plain brown paper envelope) do exactly the same with more personnel and a much bigger budget. I give you the alleged kidnap of Gretchen Witmer where of the 15 conspirators, 12 were either FBI or paid FBI informants/stooges as an example.

I have only touched on what I know of the surveillance carried out in the UK and I very likely have only scratched the surface of the extent and breadth of such monitoring of the indigenous British. This will be a crucial point to bear in mind.

The Future

How will change occur?

For many reasons, the original question of “Will there be a revolution in the UK?” can be simply answered “No”.

This is (referring back to the definition of “revolution”) because A REVOLUTION HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE. As outlined above, there is a substantial number of non-British origin MP’s in Parliament and if you take into account the number of foreigners elected by their large immigrant constituents in local councils (Sadiq Khan, the Lord Mayor of London is a classic example, with his communist policies) then there is little chance of change. The cry of racism is enough to quash all opposition.

Since all the politicians, even so called “right wing” politicians are effectively left wing to a greater or lesser extent and the Civil Service wholly so, then “the Long March Through The Institutions has successfully achieved its aims.

So, voting will not change the situation.

Revolution

This is a non-starter. Anyone attempting to organise any resistance to how the State operates will quickly come to the attention of the security services and be “dealt with.” See the surveillance section above.

If you want to conduct a clandestine operation against the current state, then you need to study the examples provided by WW2 and the various resistance movements run in the occupied countries of Europe. In short and briefly you need:

• A safe haven. During WW2, that was England where you could recruit, train, equip and supply the resistance movement, provide rest and recuperation and support and recruit further personnel to carry out the aims of the resistance. Similarly, if you examine the Vietnam conflict, the North Vietnamese and the Viet Kong had Cambodia and North Vietnam as their safe havens which were (largely) immune from American retaliation. A review of similar civil wars will turn up exactly this scenario (e.g., the Kurds in Northern Iraq had Turkey as their operating base, the Afghani Mujahedeen had safe bases in Pakistan etc. where the host countries armed, or at least turned a blind eye to their activities)
• Material support. Britain provided a lot of materiel (arms, explosives, technical training in their use as well as written training manuals etc.) to the various resistance groups on the continent.
• Moral support. This consists of radio/TV broadcasts as a bare minimum to maintain the hope that there will be a time when the current situation will be eliminated and/or the invaders thrown out.
• A counter to propaganda. If “the powers that be” control the broadcast and printed media, then an alternative to their propaganda is required and broadcasting from an adjacent territory is essential.

None of those conditions pertain to the UK and the USA or Canada (even if it wished to support such a resistance movement) is too far away to offer material aid and offer a safe haven for such an organisation intending regime change. Indeed, since the government control the media of every description, the population is incapable of (or too lazy) to think outside of the box (see the Karen like behaviour of a large percentage of the population during the COVID years) and such characters would report any such nonstandard thoughts or behaviours to the authorities. Let’s face it, if the British Army could and did penetrate the IRA (whose absolutely brutal and terminal methods of dealing with members that were suspected of disloyalty were legendary – Fun fact. The IRA killed far more Irish people than the British army did over the last 200 years but “The Bastard Brits” get reviled) then any less disciplined and rigidly selected and closed organisation stands little chance of preventing similar infiltration.

I could envisage many small groups arising and maybe assassinating MP’s heads of the Police Forces and other civil servants but coordinating their activities, forming and formulating a “resistance council” to oversee and plan such activities will be difficult. Not impossible and the cellular nature of the various groups would make them difficult to track down and eliminate and, hence, could make a change possible but without external support, it is unlikely it could be sustained to a useful conclusion. I am thinking of post WW2 Poland where, thanks to the masses of equipment left behind by the Germans, there was (allegedly) strong resistance to the Russian occupation up to and maybe beyond the mid 1950’s. However, without external support, it was inevitably doomed to fail.

Coup D’état

It is assumed that any Coup D’état will be organised and carried out by the armed services or, in rare cases, the police or internal security services.

To successfully stage and carry out a successful Coup D’état you will need the following conditions and organisation:

• A small, tightly knit and disciplined group of plotters/officers who are loyal and committed to each other and “the cause”
• The plotters must be experienced in formulating detailed plans and timetables to coordinate the plot and its execution, over the entire country in a short time period
• A large enough set of underlings that will obey orders and carry out the commands of the plotters swiftly and efficiently
• The plotters must have access to weaponry and the means to employ their resources effectively
• The ability to arrest officers that are not part of the plot or at least cause them to remain neutral and not leave their barracks to interfere with the coup
• Plans to have a small number of politicians sympathetic to the aims of the plotters who will act as spokesmen and the face of the new government, preferably someone known and popular with the citizens of the country. This politician must have limited powers, at least in the early days following the coup

In Britain, the Army officer corps fulfils the first bullet point condition. Their training at Sandhurst and the regimental system produces a cadre of men that know each other intimately and although politics is one of the forbidden topics of conversation in the officers mess, having passed through their officer training, they will have a very similar outlook on life and views about the state of the country.

The staff officers will be trained in formulating plans, including logistics and timings for major offensives so this is a major strength which contributes to the likelihood of a successful conclusion.

The British army is trained to obey orders and the average private soldier will obey orders, particularly since they have been deployed to Northern Ireland, trained in street fighting and crowd control and if they are told that it is an anti-terrorist operation will have no qualms about carrying out the orders.

Weaponry, including armoured personnel carriers, armoured cars and tanks are naturally available and will be deployed as a matter of course to increase mobility and to intimidate those that need to be intimidated.

One advantage of the British army organisation is that, thanks to the Territorial Army whose depots act as training centres for the part time soldiers and regimental depots for the regular army during peacetime and in the event of war, as training and recruitment centres to supply trained soldiers to their regiments. They exist in every major city and therefore once the plot is triggered, there will be minimal delay in quickly taking control of the country and no time will be lost moving troops and equipment from centralised depots.

The timing of the coup is critical as the plotters will need to seize the government MP’s quickly and efficiently. If I was coordinating the plot, I would select the state opening of parliament as the day. All MP’s MUST be present to take their oath of office on that day and there would be none that were missed in the initial series of arrests. After that one day, MP’s may be in parliament, in their constituencies, opening factories and kissing babies or simply not turn up at their usual place of work. There is no obligation for them to attend parliament unless their party wants them there for a vote that the party deems critical when they will be subject to discipline if they don’t turn up. So the state opening of parliament it is.

Simultaneously, the civil servants in charge of the various departments that could interfere with the plans must be arrested and detained and not allowed to communicate with the outside world. Similarly, the Chiefs of Police and enough of the higher ranks who could take command of the police force must be arrested too.

One big and important arrest must take place and that is the King. He is nominally the head of the armed forces (Chuckles holds the rank of Grand Admiral) and it is “his” Government. The prime minister must ask the king for permission to dissolve parliament before a general election and then the new prime minister must ask the king if he (or she) can form the new government. He is a key figure both in the eyes of the public and the rest of the world. He needs to be seized and the plotters must ensure that he follows their script and not condemn them on air or otherwise.

The means of communication and the press must be disabled for the necessary time – and that includes telephones, mobile phones, the internet and the various social media that allows messaging as well as TV and radio broadcasting and newspapers. Wives and relatives of those arrested need to be unable to alert others and/or the press etc. so that the “enemy” command, control and communications ability is neutralised. Naturally, the army with their own radios etc. can maintain the necessary communication to coordinate the activities and report progress etc.

The army has technical experts that can manage to do that (the Royal Signals, the Royal Engineers and REME [Regiment of Electrical and Mechanical Engineers]) and to restore communications when needed.

Once the plot has been successfully executed, then restoration of communications will take place and the selected spokesmen will get in front of cameras and microphones to reassure the public and explain the need for the coup. This stage is likely to take place no more than a day or two after the arrests etc. and normal life will continue (after the minor disruption of banks being unable to process credit and ATM transactions).

Mark Felton believes that a partial coup took place in the 1960’s, although I would regard it as a shot across the bows of the government of the day:

Note the small armoured cars in that YouTube video – they are Daimler Ferrets which was one of the vehicles I was trained on when I was in the army. Very handy and well suited to city operations … long since retired from service but I still have fond memories of them. Nostalgia isn’t what it used to be, eh?

How likely is a Coup D’état?

This is the big question.

All service personnel must swear allegiance to the King, his heirs and successors. The British army officers take that oath seriously and it would take a seismic shift in their attitudes to break that oath.

The non-commissioned officers and private soldiers would be very much in tune with the aims of the plotters and they are very “right wing” in their politics and attitudes so failure to obey orders is unlikely (at least in my opinion).

The inter service coordination – among the Army, Royal Air Force and Navy is uncertain. The various service officers rarely mix so sounding out the attitudes and willingness of another branch of the armed services to either join in the coup or to remain on the side lines is an unknown factor. I have assumed that the army will carry out the coup because they have the most suitable equipment and the personnel trained in land operations but both the RAF and Navy could contribute valuable expertise and support.

However, since a revolution or uprising of the civilian population is unlikely for the various factors I have outlined above, then if Britain is to be saved, a military led coup followed by a military controlled government for a prolonged period (say, for the sake of the discussion, 10 years) is the only solution I can see. If the military had the determination to stop and reverse immigration, both legal and illegal, a commitment to punishing criminals and a reduction in the size and expense of the state, along with ceasing foreign aid – the process of taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries – they would be extremely popular.

But there are many people chanting “Refugees Welcome” that would object. However I believe that they are in a very small minority and are only given prominence because of the left wing press and broadcasters. Once the non-British and anti-British British (such as the commonwealth citizens) are expelled, then their cause would be weakened.

My take is that there will be no revolution or Coup D’état and that Britain is doomed. I have no stake in the future. My wife is dead, we never hand children and even my dog is now in that great big dog kennel in the sky and at age 70, I have no interest in marriage or what happens to the world beyond the next 20 years (my father died a week before his 90^th birthday and my mother at age 88 so I have the genetics to live a bit longer).

As the Chinese curse goes, may you live in interesting times. Or observe it from 10,000 miles away.