Cry havoc, and let slip the means of war

Britain faces a more grave threat from within than from without.

It is quite clear to anyone paying attention that a great contradiction is underway. Britain, a nation once renowned for its imperial splendour, and the respect it commanded, now languishes in the mid table of geopolitical influence. She has simply lost her bottle.

This is, in no meagre manner, attributable almost entirely to a declinist approach to the military. Militarism, as we have come to learn the hard way, is not a game of war but rather a game of peace. The greatest innoculant against war, and the ills it brings, is a preparedness for it; a public face that seems to say 'go ahead, try me'. It is one of the few justifications for Trident, and other such projects.

The great contradiction is that we no longer have the means to fight a war, as pointed out by the Americans. And they are not wrong. If a nation cannot defend its own southern coast, by what means can it defend her interests a thousand miles away. Could Britain reclaim the Falklands? Gibraltar even? I am dubious as to whether we could. So why then is it, that our management opines, so clearly, in the direction of war?

As the conflict in Ukraine, tragic and pointless as it may be, rages on, British politics seems to have abandoned all reason. We, alongside the Americans, have played a hand so careless, so unflinching in the face of a catastrophic outcome for all involved, that a regional conflict in Eastern Europe has dragged the continent, kicking and screaming, to the brink of annihilation.

Britain faces a more grave threat from within than from without. Our own ruling class have done a better job than any foreign antagonist could hope to do. Running concurrently with the disestablishment of Britain's defence capability, we have war-mongering psychopaths in major governmental positions. Tobias Elwood seems particularly keen on the matter. But we don't have the means for war. We have cried 'havoc', and let it slip. We are mongering for war with a tiny stick. We have brought a knife to a gun fight.

Money wasted elsewhere could have been spent on the military, not for the means of war but for the means of national security, employment and purpose for the millions of talented young British men, who are wasted elsewhere flogging furniture and stalking the weight rack in gyms.

How does Britain defend itself, one might ask? NATO? Pull the other one.

The post-war, or if I were to presume boldly, the pre-war condition is defined, geopolitically, by the subjugation of western Europe to American interests. Vassalage, if you will. We shall fight in their wars. This quasi-protection predicates itself in the publicly imagined outcome of the Second World War. Americans saved Europe, as the story goes, so John Bull must die for Uncle Sam.

The considerations required are as serious as the need for a drastically different leadership. One that pursues peace, stability and sovereignty. One that won't take us into catastrophe. One that cares if Britain lives or dies.