This is a guest post by Abdullah Noorudeen from Coolness of Hind.

The first article in this series exposed how David Betz has been connected to and amplified by Zionist networks. The second uncovered flaws in the premises of his civil war theory and documented how he has worked to normalise the Great Replacement conspiracy theory while legitimising and promoting far-right propaganda. Taken together, the evidence showed that Betz is actively exacerbating social conflict, helping manufacture the very tensions he presents as inevitable, and shifting his role from commentator to insurgent propagandist.

This piece examines how he effectively presents a terror manual aimed at the “native” population to eradicate Muslims.

Betz and His Gaza Plan for UK Muslims

Betz’s initial articles on civil war maintain a descriptive tone.

In expanding on the “shape of the civil wars to come”, he explains that the nature of the civil war will have a (white) rural versus a “diverse” urban dimension in which the two populations have a “growing mutually hostile political relationship”. The second factor he highlights is the vulnerability of the country’s critical infrastructure: gas, electricity, and transportation, which are mainly located in rural areas.

In one of his articles, under the subheading “Urbicide: A How to Guide”, he describes in detail how “anti-status-quo groups” conceive of a plan to “collapse the major cities, causing cascading crises leading to systemic failure and a period of mass chaos which they will wait out from the relative security of the rural provinces.”

While the “natives” will target the “establishment” through “dirty war” tactics such as kidnappings and killings, there will be a parallel “intertribal war” between the “natives” and “non-natives” conducted by paramilitaries.

Rather disturbingly, in a video still available on YouTube, Betz “plays out” the method.

The main mode of attack Betz describes is “systems disruption” or “infrastructural attack” to accelerate the disorder and destruction of a city, forcing people to flee from “mixed areas” to less “mixed areas” to form three zones:

• Zone A: an islandic urban area with a dense non-native (i.e. Muslim) majority population – Betz calls it a “no-go zone” and an “ethnic enclave”. The areas he identifies as examples are those running across from the Humber River: Leeds, Rotherham, Bradford, Bolton, and Burnley, and so on.
• Zone B: connected rural areas and small towns with a majority-native population. If there are any Muslims, they will have been driven out through the intertribal attacks and the resulting “assortative” movement.
• Zone C: areas that the government still has some control over. Betz sees some parts of Metropolitan London as an example of Zone C.

It is worth noting that the categorisations of areas A, B, and C appear to be lifted and adapted from the “Israeli” categorisation of Palestinian areas. In the West Bank, Palestinians have been crammed into areas A and B. The Palestinian Authority is meant to maintain internal security of Area A and control education, health, and the economy in Area B. Area C is predominantly rural, comprised of open spaces and agricultural and grazing land. In reality, the Zionist entity exercises totalitarian military control over areas A and B, while tumorous Jewish “settlers” colonise Area C and restrict access to basic resources, such as water, into areas A and B.

Echoing strategies used by Jewish supremacist groups against Palestinians, Betz describes “how you deal with a contested urban space”, arguing that the most effective approach would be a siege that targets the city’s “life-support system”, much of which lies outside its boundaries.

Shockingly, he gives life to this strategy by presenting the example of Bradford, which has a large population of Muslims:

“For example, take the city of Bradford, a medium-sized UK city located in the north, one of the kind of hotbeds now for these issues. How many petrol stations do you need to destroy to make the fuel supply basically turn Bradford into a pedestrianised city because you can’t get fuel? The answer is very low. It’s probably about 25 you could do. So one could map it out.”

In a written piece, Betz further adds:

“Food distribution, energy and utilities are inherently vulnerable; their disruption multiplies instability and intensifies demographic reshuffling.”

Quite simply, Betz’s favoured mode of attack for the natives against the Muslim community is to create a Gaza-like scenario for Muslims in Britain, with the exception of air bombardment, but all the denials of essentials of survival, food, water, electricity, and so on that were enacted in Gaza.

Some may argue that Betz is providing “strategic analysis”. However, when we factor in the clear evidence showing Betz mainstreaming the far-right, their anti-Muslim conspiracy theories, and promoting their anti-Muslim narratives, using Muslims as the operational target of Gaza-style ethnic cleansing blurs the boundaries between analysis and promulgation of violent far-right fantasies.

What aggravates this is that he publicly agrees with (and thereby legitimises) anti-Muslim terroristic instructional manuals written by “El Ingles” and published on a violently anti-Islam and Muslim blog site, Gates of Vienna.

(Link)

In one of his more recent articles, he writes:

“Warnings of this path are not new, particularly in what may be termed dissident literature. For example, the 2011 monograph Our Muslim Troubles by the pseudonymous author ‘El Inglés’, offered an account of demographic and cultural fault-lines that have since proved disturbingly accurate. Yet such works are invariably dismissed as tainted by association with the ‘far-Right’, and ignored by academia, rather than treated as they should be in scholarly terms as gateways into the thought-worlds of political communities that, if polling and electoral evidence is anything to go by, increasingly represents a plurality of opinion across Western societies.”

For Betz, the violent, hate-filled writings published on this counter-jihad website are “dissident” works that have supposedly proven accurate because similar sentiments can be detected across Western societies in some “organic” way.^[1]

This position is dubious for a couple of reasons.

First, the rupturing of certain faultlines is not merely organic. As we have repeatedly highlighted, Betz ignores the multimillion-dollar Zionist Islamophobia industry that spawned after the War on Terror began. Through funding networks, media platforms, and coordinated propaganda campaigns, this Zionist ecosystem (which includes Jeffrey Epstein and Steve Bannon) capitalised on economic insecurity and fanned the flames of division and hatred, redirecting far-right anti-Jewish hostility towards Muslims.

Indeed, the Gates of Vienna website itself has been a key hub in this ecosystem, promoting Islamophobic propaganda through Zionist Jewish writers such as the far-right terrorist inspiration Bat Ye’or. Her writings have circulated widely in counter-jihad circles. Her work was mainstreamed by Zionist Jewish writers, including Bernard Lewis, Martin Gilbert, Daniel Pipes, and Melanie “Mad Mel” Phillips, as well as neocons like Douglas Murray. The spread of their anti-Muslim narratives across the UK and Europe, therefore, cannot be described as organic. They have been actively injected and promoted through well-funded Zionist forces serving their own genocidal projects.

Second, it is a significant leap to conclude that public concern about immigration and voting for a far-right leader who plays to this tune at the polling station somehow validates a “monograph” outlining how to massacre Muslims as representing “a plurality of opinion across Western societies”. This brings in to focus his training and background in psychological warfare more than the “academic expertise” he is at pains to portray.

Both rhetorical moves, selective factors and questionable causal links serve to present the fringe extreme as the political mainstream. But this does not capture how truly disturbing Betz’s approval is. To understand its implications more clearly, we will summarise the two series of articles he is effectively promoting and mainstreaming.

RELATED: Zionist Regime Change: The Agenda Behind Elon Musk’s Disruption of Britain

Gatestone Articles

The Gates of Vienna website was referenced extensively by Anders Breivik in his terrorist manifesto and promotes what Getz has given his academic credence to: the Great Replacement conspiracy theory.

The articles on this site have been described as “a training manual for anti-Muslim paramilitaries”.

The specific writings Betz refers to, those authored by El Ingles, are disturbing in their outright violent hatred of Islam and Muslims.

In 2011, El Ingles published a series of articles titled “Our Muslim Troubles: Lessons from Northern Ireland”. The piece is shockingly anti-Muslim, employing neocon narratives against Islam and Muslims as the basis for violent conflict. In outlining this conflict, it becomes tantamount to a terrorist manual aimed at systematically eradicating Muslims.

The Troubles Parallel

The series invokes Northern Ireland’s history of The Troubles to promote what amounts to his Muslim eradication plan. However, the comparison is deeply flawed.

When The Troubles began in Northern Ireland, the Protestant-Catholic demographic balance was a 65–35% split. The two communities were therefore large enough to sustain prolonged paramilitary mobilisation on both sides.

Muslims make up only 4% in the UK today. Even if only a subset of the “native” population attacked Muslims, the pool from which anti-Muslim paramilitaries could draw support would be so vast, rendering the comparison meaningless. How could Muslims plausibly even fight a civil war against potentially 96% of the population, plus the police and armed forces? If a violent conflict were to break out, it would not be a “civil war” but a genocide of a minority.

El Ingles anticipates this population difference contention and counters that the local population balance is key:

“To compare the current Muslim population of the UK (just under 5%) to the Catholic population of NI when conflict erupted (about 33%) would be to miss the point. Those parts of Britain undergoing rapid colonization by Muslims are, taken by themselves, only small parts of Britain. But NI itself is only a small part of Britain. It is the local population balance that seems to matter, and NI was a good example of this. Would we say that the 500,000-strong Catholic population of NI in 1969 was only a tiny minority of the whole of the UK, and that violent conflict could therefore not break out between it and some other part of the population? Obviously not, as it is a historical fact that such conflict did break out. Why could something similar not happen in, say Birmingham? Why could conflict envelop an area such as NI, but not a city such as Birmingham, whose population is of the same order of magnitude as that of NI in 1969, or an area such as the north-west of England, whose population is considerable larger?”

However, the comparison is still grossly flawed. The populations of Northern Ireland are confined to half an “island”. To lump them altogether with mainland Britain as a contiguous demographic is a slight of hand trick to give credence to his ridiculous theory. We are sure El Ingles and Betz know this is nonsensical but it seems both hope that no one would notice the stupidity behind the “academic façade”.

Even within the context of Northern Ireland, demography is not the sole explanation for the Troubles. Nor is group size necessary nor sufficient for violent conflict. Civil war scholar Professor Barbara Walter highlights a cluster of factors: British colonisation, land theft, British cartography of the region politically and socially favouring Protestants, undemocratic laws, and a vicious cycle of persistent systemic discrimination, all overseen by partial democracy. These factors created preconditions for civil war: two competing factions vying for authority, a partial democracy, and explicit policies aimed at diminishing and weakening the Catholic native population. The British brutality that followed was the tipping point at which Catholics lost all hope, entrenching the Troubles.^[2]

As we have already discussed in some detail examining Betz’s misuse of Professor Walter’s work, these conditions are not present in the UK. There are forces at play that wish to depict a version of reality in which they are.

Nevertheless, Northern Ireland was a constitutional and territorial conflict involving entrenched political blocs with paramilitaries, foreign backing, and a history of war. Muslims are not a rival sovereign group, are not disputing territory, and do not have an armed political movement seeking to overthrow the UK government. They are governed and policed by the same institutions.

In fact, it can be argued that Protestant fearmongering about being “outbred” by Catholics was a driver in loyalist mobilisation (see more here). If anything, the Northern Ireland example shows that demography panic, like the Great Replacement theory, is itself a dangerous ideology, not some type of diagnostic factor. By pursuing this line of argument, El Ingles, and by extension Betz, is creating and fomenting a driver of sectarian mobilisation, not identifying it.

To ignore all of this and to then only inflate the group size factor is reductionist and intellectually dishonest demographic paranoia masquerading as reason.

Of course, declaring Muslim demographic shifts “colonizing” helps support the racist façade of the primacy of demography while framing Muslims as a hostile force. It is the same type of reasoning historically used to demonise Jews in Europe and African Americans in the US.

Note that Betz also uses Northern Ireland history in the context of his anti-Muslim civil war plan.^[3]

Violent Anti-Muslim Hate

Aside from the problematic parallel, the 2011 pieces are violently anti-Muslim.

The articles refer to Muslims as “seditious” and “colonizers” and make their presence itself problematic. It states that “their criminality (including terrorism), their parasitism, their sedition, and their subversion”, and their “general unpleasantness”, will lead to violent European backlash. He likens Muslims to poison and Islam to cancer. He claims Islam is “intrinsically violent and oppressive”. He calls Muslims a “fifth column”. He further adds:

“Muslim community of Britain is parasitic with respect to both financial and social capital, criminal and subversive, aggressive and rapidly growing.”

On Pakistanis, he writes:

“Not a single one of the good things that exists in Britain could possibly exist in Pakistan, and not a single one of them will survive in any area of the UK that comes to be dominated by Pakistanis. The spread of these people in the UK represents the complete obliteration of everything that the British people have built over their thousands of years of history.”

He presents fantasies of white farmers who possess bomb-making material, indiscriminately bombing Muslim residential areas as predictive analysis. For El Ingles, white paramilitaries will be “resisting the dispossession of their people by a hostile, religiously-motivated tribe that can create only violence, savagery and madness.” He praises the rise of a “robust, successful, anti-Islamic street movement like the EDL”, which he sees as a nascent violent uprising. He feels the triggers for the civil war will be terrorist attacks and riots, and anticipates that the conflict will be underway by 2031.

The screed includes demands that are a practical manifestation of the various anti-Muslim statements made by Zionist neoconservatives over the years.^[4] If these are not met, then British paramilitaries will engage in extreme violence against Muslims, wherein “indiscriminate bombings of Muslim civilian targets are a virtual certainty” that would “entail the utter crushing of Muslims”.

Crown, Crescent, Pitchfork

El Ingles’s 2025 series of pieces, titled “Crown, Crescent, Pitchfork”, is similarly noxious. He attempts to frame this series as predictive analysis and not a terrorist manual. However, the first article opens with a poem that suggests that the rural natives (“the pitchfork”) are awakening but do not have the tactics against Muslims (“the crescent”) before proceeding to outline strategies of procuring and using weapons most ideal in a given conflict situation.

Some quotes in this regard:

“Rather, it is likely that even when these firearms are used in anti-Crescent activity, they will be used predominantly as: a) force multipliers in close-quarter battle (shotguns), b) as tools for targeted killings (shotguns and rifles), and c) as tools for applying psychological and strategic pressure on enemy zones (rifles). These applications would not be ammunition-intensive, and would allow Pitchfork to continue to operate for an extended period without concerns pertaining to resupply.”

“One imagines that devices of this sort might be produced by committed Pitchfork elements, especially if their members included people with relevant backgrounds in quarrying, demolitions, or the military.”

“I assume an arbitrary upper limit of 2kg due to the dangers of premature detonation in larger masses.”

“However, it is more than likely that we will see serious attempts to weaponise drones in this fashion if native irregulars can gain access to military ordnance — grenades in particular…. However, its use would have a very profound psychological and strategic effect on targeted parties (mainly Crescent) and those required to formulate responses (Crown).”

“Crossbows are entirely legal.”

“If a Pitchfork element can refrain from carrying a government-visible tracking device with him everywhere he goes, his operational lifespan can only improve.”

(Link)

Each piece ends with a vivid depiction of atrocities against Muslims.

Like Betz, El Ingles also proposes systems disruption as the optimal method for killing Muslims and forcing the rest of them to remigrate. He even entertains the different ways drones and propaganda on social media can be used further to create division, disorder, and death among Muslims.

But what is most disturbing is the similarity to Betz’s analysis. Like Betz (and the Jewish supremacists in Palestine), El Ingles identifies three zones. Zone A is where Muslims are densely populated. Zone B is where Muslims are present in large numbers but are not dominant. Zone C is everywhere else. The strategy El Ingles outlines is that the natives will attack Muslims in Zones C and B, noting a handful of natives using rifles would be most effective both in terms of killing and psychological terror. This would cause Muslims to flee to Zone A, where they will overload the Zone’s infrastructure, making it difficult for people to live. Rifle fire would continue to be an effective means:

“The effect even a small number of Pitchfork shooters could have on Muslim populations in Zones A and B might be very severe indeed.”

The most effective tactic El Ingles identifies is the targeting of the food infrastructure to starve Muslims to death. It outlines specific areas to target and the number of food trucks needed to trigger starvation. We have seen Betz’s Bradford example of attacking petrol stations. El Ingles uses Birmingham:

“Let us imagine that Pitchfork elements decide to interdict lorries coming from the south, into the southern part of Zone A (which includes Small Heath, Sparkhill, and Sparkbrook).”

El Ingles explains that the impact will be, inter alia, the incentivisation of Muslims to leave the country, allowing natives to frame Muslims as irredeemably uncivilised as order completely collapses (“they loot their own supermarkets!”), and pressure on the government. It also outlines the use of dark propaganda through AI and TikTok to fabricate false claims about intercommunal violence with an aim to “depict Crescent elements as irredeemably violent and incompatible with the UK”:

“Pakistani on Bangladeshi, Somali on everybody, Arab on Kurd, Turk on Kurd — these are all likely to be seen as options, geography and demographics permitting. If dark propaganda ops occur to Pitchfork at all, the Pakistani/Bangladeshi faultline will be one of the first to be targeted. These are the two largest Muslim groups in the UK, often live in proximity to each other, and have substantial inter-group hostilities that grow out of the 1971 Indo-Pak War.”

In his fictional addendums, El Engles gives the example of a Deobandi stabbing a Barelvi youth worker.

In other words, the strategy is to spread intra-Muslim propaganda to encourage Muslims to tear each other apart, thereby manufacturing “evidence” for the neoconservative narrative that portrays Islam and Muslims as inherently uncivilised.

RELATED: Hindutva, Zionists, and the Far Right Team Up to Smear UK Muslims and Mohammed Hijab

Questions

The level of detail in these instruction manuals is shockingly operational.

Suppose, if you would, a Muslim, or even a white “native” person, had publicly endorsed a terrorist insurgency instruction manual violently targeting the Jewish population, mapping out Jewish areas such as Barnet, Hackney, and Salford, and outlining the most effective solutions to ensure their killing or repatriation. Suppose further, that these strategies were eerily similar to what this hypothetical person was outlining in his own written and oral work. And suppose this person was now freely touring podcasts hours on end mainstreaming far-right conspiracy theories and casual racism against Jews in the name of civil war analysis?

What would his outcome be?

He would be at the very least socially ostracised if not arrested under the Terrorism Act 2006, particularly its provisions related to the dissemination of material likely to encourage or assist terrorism.

So why, then, is David Betz afforded free rein while openly supporting the Great Replacement theory, dog-whistling far-right narratives that also happen to be key triggers of his civil war framework, and legitimising a terrorist insurgency manual that targets Muslims?

Is the British security establishment in on it? Are they permitting David Betz to apply his own counterinsurgency/insurgency strategies to the British public?

RELATED: Zionist Radicalism Taking Over Public Schools: The Case of Barclay Primary

Betz as the Counterinsurgent Insurgent

We have thus far established that, having spent over a decade on far-right online forums overseen by Jeffrey Epstein, David Betz is not merely describing his analysis of a threat but is an active conduit for the flow of these dangerous ideas into the mainstream. He is actively promoting far-right, half-baked narratives about Muslims and predictively programming listeners to associate multiculturalism, riots, instability, and criminality with Muslims.

The cherry on top of this poisonous gateau is Betz endorsing a violent, hate-filled blogger and his writings outlining the optimal strategy for Muslim extermination on a site strongly linked to far-right mass-murdering terrorists.

But we need to take a step back here.

David Betz’s expertise is in counterinsurgency and propaganda, expertise he gained while advising British and American forces on how best to kill, deceive, and control invaded Muslim populations as part of the War on Terror.

In one of his articles from the War on Terror period, Betz highlights that the West is losing the “war of ideas” against the idea of Jihad principally because it was not aligning its military structures to engage in it. There was insufficient focus on “winning and maintaining the hearts and minds of the most critical and accessible population: our own.”^[5] In other words, Betz was arguing that the West should subject its own population to war propaganda or “strategic narratives”.^[6]

Significant here is the approach he contours as part of his counterinsurgency strategy for effective propaganda. Betz analyses enemy (Muslims) propaganda and asserts that they have a coherent narrative. He then explains that for a “strategic narrative” to be effective, there must be alignment on three levels:^[7]

1. Top level: an eschatological narrative related to idealised visions of the future of humanity.
2. Bottom level: the various local or individual narratives in which people form ideas about what they should or should not do and what rewards or penalties they will incur from a particular course of action.
3. Intermediate level: the strategic narrative that links the top and bottom levels. They relate to complex beliefs that are “perceived as natural or inevitable”.

According to Betz, there does not need to be truth at any of these three levels of narrative. What is required is an internal coherence, or what Betz calls “vertical narrative coherence”.

Although Betz applies this in the context of Muslim resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan, it appears that, today, Betz is himself engaged in this form of propaganda warfare, but against the population of Britain. He is engaging in insurgent-style narrative construction. Applying his structure:

1. He blames multiculturalism and supports the Great Replacement theory in a way that relates to the British social eschatology, implicitly hearkening to an imaginary purer immigrant-free period.
2. He places point number 1 in today’s context by linking it to his prioritisation of “identity politics” as the main catalyst for war to distorted presentations of flashpoint events such as the Southport riots and the Leicester unrest. He identifies the clear enemy – Muslims who are a “subnation” with a parallel legal system and are associated with crimes such as the “grooming gangs” – and the accomplice: the government, due to multiculturalism and two-tier policing that favours non-natives and downgrades natives.
3. He has a clear call to action on the individual level. He urges individuals to have a “realistic understanding of your local urban situation” and to move out of the urban areas: “I think anybody living in big cities, anybody in, say, London or Birmingham — should leave.” Put differently, he urges people to pick their side alongside those who will most likely eradicate Muslims.

We can understand the purpose of Betz’s vertically coherent propaganda narrative through his own article from the War on Terror era.

Betz explains that the target of counterinsurgency in an information war is the gap between what an insurgent says and what they do. He elaborates:^[8]

“In crude terms, the ‘bad guys’ need to, and can be made to, stand up and be counted for their acts. ‘The Insurgency’ is all too often abstracted and depersonalized, which makes it amorphous and blurs the discourse. In fact, insurgent attacks are real events involving real people: victims of violence and perpetrators of it. Separate these and you disaggregate the ethnic, religious, and political components. Instead of focusing on the event itself, which leaves the field open to continued reinterpretation of the underlying grievances of the attacker, the victims and the misery of their families must become the story in a counter-narrative. Their suffering is reattached to the perpetrators of extreme violence, who are singled out wherever possible as individuals (self-interested and flawed criminals at that), thereby detaching them from any legitimizing ideology.”

There are three points we can take from this passage. First, when an event occurs, it can be used to make the perpetrator knowable who would be otherwise hidden behind vague identities and causes. Second, the event should be personalised to the perpetrator. Third, the focus of the “story” should be on the impact of the event caused by the individual, not on the underlying grievance, motivation, or cause that may legitimate their action.

From our analysis of the anti-Muslim/Great Replacement narratives Betz has been supporting, it is apparent that, in the case of populist and far-right groups, Betz is doing the opposite. He is obfuscating the perpetrators by legitimising their cause (i.e. “natives are “downgraded”, “grooming gangs”, “peasant revolt”), depersonalising the attacks of the far-right on Islam and Muslims by emphasising structural factors (immigration, demographic change), and glossing over their violence and impact on Muslims by emphasising their “native” grievance or reframing them as victims (police used “extraordinary aggression” and are “heavy-handed” using “intrusive policing” against violent far-right mobs).

Quite simply, Betz is shielding far-right actors from individual accountability, “reattaching” their actions to a broader legitimising narrative of grievance, and transforming specific instances of violence into evidence of an abstract, ethnonational grievance narrative rather than the choices of identifiable perpetrators.

So, what is really happening here?

The answer can be drawn from the fact that David Betz is, and has always been, a counterinsurgency specialist. And his Zionist affiliations indicate to whom these efforts are aligned.

Based on our analysis, we suspect two main goals are being met by legitimising the unreality of Tommy Robinson.

Although Betz highlights the loss of trust in the government, he redirects the gaze of his readers and listeners to multiculturalism and its purported impact through far-right narratives to then narrow the focus further onto Muslims.^[9] This forces people into two opposing camps: Muslims (along with sections of the left) and those who are aligned, to varying degrees, with Tommy Robinson et al. As long as far-right groups and Muslims are locked at each other’s throats and blaming social organisation policies, Betz’s job is done. The British population, including Muslims, is not identifying and therefore uniting on the real cause: two decades of Zio-Western wars in the Muslim world that have triggered population movements into Europe. Their attention is thus drawn away from “Israel” and its extensions in the West as key orchestrators in these dynamics, and remains distracted from “Israel” and the Western complicity in genocide in Gaza. The persistent demonisation of Muslims has the added effect of softening audiences to both the Zio-Western genocide in Gaza and the bloodletting of Muslim girls in Iran. If Muslims of Britain are killed in this entire process, Netanyahu would be most pleased.

The second is regime change within Britain. Both the Zionist PayPal mafia and Elon Musk have been amplifying all the talking points Betz has been propagating and identifying as drivers of his civil war. Betz even believes Elon Musk’s X platform is “good for the government”. This claim is important because Musk and his X platform have played significant roles in political upheavals, achieving regime change in Argentina and the US. They are attempting the same in the UK and Germany. Populist parties are using propaganda to slip through the deregulation policy agenda, granting Ziotechnofascists control over laws governing data, social media, and AI, paving the way for digital authoritarianism and a “digital Epstein”. This means a British population hostage to “Israel”-infiltrated big tech surveillance. We exposed this agenda in detail last year in this article.

RELATED: Epstein’s Connection to Douglas Murray, Dershowitz, and the Neocons

Advice to Muslims

The matter is urgent and requires direction.

What we as Muslims face is not new. In recent history, it can be traced to the War on Terror, which cannot be understood without considering the siamesic involvement of “Israel”. In 2005, prominent Jewish neocon Daniel Pipes stated that the approach against Islam would mirror the approach against Communism: to make it look “repulsive in the eyes of the majority”.

This strategy has not changed, but the intended aim of proliferating Muslim demographic paranoia has catalysed and continues to peak. Two decades of political and media demonisation of Islam and Muslims has reached a point where a professor connected to the government, military, and the intelligence community is openly supporting the far-right Great Replacement theory, mainstreaming its proponents – some of whom are neo-Nazis, granting legitimacy to anti-Muslim propaganda narratives that he believes are contributory to the inevitability of Muslim extermination, and publicly approving terror manuals targeting Muslims in the UK.

The fact that David Betz has been doing all this from pro-“Israel”, Zionist-friendly platforms for several months without censure suggests a degree of collusion in some deep quarters of the state.

As Muslims in Britain, we need to take precautionary measures.

Protection of Islamic Scholars, Influential Muslims, and Mosques

In one of his podcast appearances, Betz identifies “a targeted attack on a noteworthy figure or a series of noteworthy figures” as a likely “spark” to trigger civil war.

Whether this is analysis or predicting programming is moot. After all, he does advise on how to avoid getting caught by the police.^[10] He gleefully “suggests” that the far-right group that will conduct the assassinations will be unknown to the security services because they will avoid using the internet to communicate.

However, what we do know is that the Zionist strategy of decapitation has a history of targeting Ulama and people of influence.

In Gaza, under the fog of genocide and blusterous propaganda, the Zionist regime has assassinated hundreds of Islamic scholars, Imams, and influential personalities like Refaat Alareer to weaken the social fabric and resilience of the enclave’s inhabitants. As one Gaza official explained in 2025, the killing forms part of a “systematic campaign to silence religious voices and dismantle pillars of resilience”:

“Clerics are vital in reinforcing national identity, nurturing faith, and preserving social cohesion. Their elimination aims to sap morale and extinguish the discourse that exposes Israel’s crimes.”

Zionist proxy and Epstein-compromised UAE has form in this type of targeted killing too. The Zionist Arab regime has hired American mercenaries and even former Al-Qaeda members to kill over 100 Muslim Imams and opposition politicians in Yemen (see here also).

It is entirely feasible that Mossad agents can target influential Muslims scholars in Britain under the cover of far-right attacks. Our analyses of recent Zionist “pro-civil-war-publications” in Britain suggest strongly that they are planning to attack Muslim scholars in Oxford, London and Birmingham. We are not citing all of these publications here because we do not want to lend them more publicity but suffice it to note that the authors are quite specific with details in this matter.

Betz’s comments^[11] and the violent anti-Muslim Gates of Vienna terrorist instructions also point to the possibility of attacks on masajid and Islamic centres.^[12]

One extreme fictional anti-Muslim Great Replacement-themed “civil war” book published in 2025 is currently circulating among the British far-right. The book is clearly Zionist, depicting Muslims as murderous Islamic hordes taking over Britain, Jews as victims, and “Israel” and Mossad as saviours. Ironically, the book is based on the highly influential 1978 white supremacist screed The Turner Diaries. (It is worth noting that The Turner Diaries is removed from Amazon listings, while this British anti-Muslim variant is currently still available.)

Pertinently, this civil war book also details accounts of mosque bombings.

As Imams and Islamic scholars are typically present in these buildings, the risk that masajid may be targeted increases. We note that such attacks are already on the increase (see here, here, and here). As a precaution, security measures should be strengthened, and Imams, scholars, and influential Muslims should remain vigilant.

Exposing David Betz’s Claims and Alerting Authorities

Our article clearly demonstrates Betz’s promotion of the Great Replacement theory and his role in mainstreaming far-right anti-Muslim propaganda and hate preachers. This aspect of his work requires public scrutiny, and questions should be raised about why state circles remain silent. We must question how a person openly mainstreams far-right and populist propaganda and is allowed to do so without challenge.

This requires writing to MPs and councillors, informing the police, and using the references from these articles to support the concerns raised.

Countering Propaganda

Rioting, grooming gangs, two-tier policing, and flagging are narratives and actions advanced by civil warmongers designed to demonise Muslims. The far-right “patriots” intensely propagate these themes. And Betz identifies them as cleavages that contribute to a civil war.

As such, we need a concerted effort to counter propaganda at both the intellectual and social levels.

Concerning rioting and unrest, this requires breaking out of the counterinsurgency-insurgency framing and avoiding becoming an insurgent within Betz’s unreality. We should not feed into the disorder and violence. We must warn communities, especially our youth, that Zionist-linked enemies are using these flashpoint events to reinforce the perception that Muslims are disordered, inherently violent, that the urban areas are beyond control, and that the civil war fantasy involving white Britons is inevitable. The outcome is damage to Muslims in Britain.

We have already outlined the key responses to the “grooming gangs” propaganda, and these should be employed online. This line of attack on both Islam and Muslims is only set to increase through a steady drip-feed of claims on social media and through the “findings” of Islamophobe Rupert Lowe’s Rape Gangs Inquiry. Child sexual abuse is a grave crime that demands compassion for victims. It is a violation of the victim and a stain on the moral fabric of any community in which it occurs. Perpetrators must face exposure and accountability, particularly given the immense harm they inflict on victims and the damage they cause to Muslim communities through unjustified stereotyping.

We have already addressed two-tier claims; therefore, we turn to the question of flags.

The so-called “British patriots” putting up flags form part of an influence campaign linked to the far-right and Zionism through networks associated with Tommy Robinson. As Betz explains, this act functions as a way of “marking boundaries” and signalling that “they don’t feel confident that it is their place”. In other words, it is a territorial gesture. More specifically, this reaction has emerged in response to the persistent pro-Palestine protests in the UK. The response to this narrative is straightforward. When Russia invaded Ukraine, Britain saw widespread displays of Ukrainian flags as a sign of public solidarity. In the same way, many people today display the Palestinian flag to express solidarity with Palestinians undergoing genocide, displacement, and mass land theft. The Palestinian flag is not a mark of territory.

Redirecting the Conversation to the Roots

As the blog on Eric Kauffman’s Substack discussing the Canadian public support for Palestine demonstrates, the Muslim demography fearmongering and “white replacement” narratives are catalysed by Zionist forces managing the perceptions of “Israel’s” evil actions.

We must, at every opportunity, ensure the conversation returns to the roots of most of the evil in the world today: Zionist Jewish supremacy and its accomplices. We must highlight the epic scale of the Jeffrey Epstein Zionist “Jewish rape gang” network aimed at trapping the power brokers and leaders of the world in favour of “Israel”, and the ongoing persecution and land theft of the Palestinian people through Western support.

We must remind the public that the foreign Zionist influence, which is genociding and replacing the population in Palestine, is also promoting the idea of population replacement in Britain to trigger violence and disorder through its agents like Tommy Robinson, Douglas Murray, Toby Young, and David Betz.

This is something no one in Britain – Muslim or non-Muslim – wants.

Agent Provocateurs

The use of agent provocateurs is a classic tactic that has been used effectively against Muslims for decades in the West. Those in the Muslim activist scene are well aware of these strategies of subversion (or should be).

We must remain alert to this threat and root out those who openly call for violence against the British population and landmarks.

This is a strategy to provoke a violent counter-response against Muslims.

Da’wah

Finally, as Muslims, it is our duty to call the people of any land to the beauty and compassion of Islam. While the concerted Zionist-backed hate campaign has undoubtedly shaped minds, perhaps a neglect of this duty has also contributed to some of the good people of Britain forming a negative perception of Islam and Muslims.

Allah instructs us toward “dealing kindly and fairly” with non-Muslims, which entails taking care of them (60:8). The Prophet ﷺ said, “None of you will have faith until he loves for his brother or his neighbour what he loves for himself.”^[13] This includes non-Muslim neighbours.

We need to revive our efforts beyond the virtual space to the physical world of our non-Muslim neighbours through compassionate interactions such as providing assistance, sharing food, and so on, which is the true hallmark of Islam.

RELATED: Addressing the “Grooming Gangs” Propaganda Narrative

Concluding Remarks

The calm, stuttering explications of a professor carry an aura of legitimacy. His deliberate cadence reassures readers and listeners that what is articulated is credible and authoritative. But it is precisely this performance of legitimacy that normalises what should strike us as a deeply troubling state of affairs.

The fact that state authorities appear willing to turn a blind eye to the conduct of their advisor only heightens the concern and leads us to urge utmost vigilance and a more active engagement with this issue.

This vigilance should not be confused with fear.

Many are the traps of the enemies, and none are more insidious than those of Shaytan. Yet Allah and His Messenger ﷺ have informed the Muslims how to withstand the unseen, multidimensional assaults directed against them. The material schemes of the enemies are no less firmly within His knowledge and sight. Belief in this, in qadar, in obedience to Allah, and in commanding the good and forbidding evil as causes that can avert the plans of the enemies are all a necessary part of our spiritual armoury that we must cultivate and deploy.

At the same time, the Qur’an also instructs the believers to adopt the material means and take our precautions. In this regard, the initiatives outlined above should be pursued.

For centuries, Islam has endured the severest trials its enemies could muster, yet it has survived and prospered despite them. David Betz and the retroviral Zionist neocon network that imagines itself as the architects of Islam’s undoing merely take their place in a long and largely forgotten procession.

RELATED: Israel’s Post-Gaza Plan: Deepening Israel-UAE’s “Abrahamic” Authoritarianism in the UK

References

[1] Betz frames his civil war and its various trappings as an “organic war” resulting from “an ‘organic’ crisis of legitimacy, identity and political authority”.

[2] Walters, B.F. How Civil Wars Start and How to Stop Them, New York: Crown, Chapter 4.

[3] Maiden Mother Matriarch Podcast Episode 124, 29 minutes. At 51 minutes David Betz states:

“Northern Ireland in the 1970s and 80s was able to sustain such an organisation for a period of 30, essentially the Troubles are generally agreed to be about 30 years. What could the English population do if it was equally, equally animated by the idea that it was being displaced, or even just partially? Right, you’re talking then of a population of 50 million people. In other words, the potential muscle is there. The grievances are there and increasing. The tactics are well understood. The tools are broadly available.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gid48FgiHho&t=2142s

[4] It proposes, the prohibition of Muslim immigration and granting of citizenship/permanent residency to Muslims already in the UK, to ensure the deportation of Muslims deemed incompatible with British society, be they British citizens or not, and to ensure that Muslims are no longer able to have their existences significantly subsidized by the British taxpayer. “Israel” cheerleader Douglas Murray has made these demands through various mediums over the past two decades.

[5] Betz, David. 2008. “The Virtual Dimension of Contemporary Insurgency and Counterinsurgency.” Small Wars & Insurgencies 19 (4): 510–40. doi:10.1080/09592310802462273, pp.514, 520.

[6] Ibid., p.518.

[7] Ibid., pp.522–523.

[8] Ibid., pp.521–522.

[9] He does this by emphasising multiculturalism as the main factor in civil war: “If we had to list uh factors in order, multiculturalism would be at the top and if we were to put some kind of ranking on them, it’s like 90%.” Link.

[10] “Actually, if you don’t want to get caught because the only thing that the British police really are looking at intensely is online behaviour. Just don’t blather about it on the internet and the police will have uh no idea.” https://youtu.be/3h49O0AGxx0?si=z4NqXmIzPJMn4qzR&t=4256

[11] David Betz states: “Attacks on the totems of a given people usually provokes them into an equal or greater reaction, which is useful in the beginning phases of a civil conflict when heightening tensions is crucial to solidifying the in-group bonding capital of one’s own side.” https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/civil-war-comes-to-the-west-part-ii-strategic-realities/

[12] El Ingles, in his 2011 diatribe on the Gates of Vienna blog, states: “It would be foolish in the extreme to rule out the possibility of British paramilitaries of whatever sort deciding to, for example, car-bomb a mosque.” In his 2025 version: “If OMT commence with a massive car bombing of a London mosque, one would immediately have to suspect state involvement, illegal military collusion, or paramilitaries operating at the highest technical levels. No one else would be likely to navigate the web of difficulties sketched out here.”

[13] Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 45.