MEN account for 88.3 per cent of personnel in Britain’s regular forces. Overall, whites (or, at least, those who do not ‘self-identify as belonging to a minority ethnic group’, in the modern parlance) account for 88.8 per cent of all employed across the Army, Navy and Air Force. As such, it is what many a leftist would condescendingly describe as ‘pale and male’.
Recently, we have learned that this same group is now at a newfound disadvantage. Sentencing guidelines coming into force on April 1 codified a two-tiered approach, with judges encouraged to give those of ‘an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community’ and the transgendered leniency when determining whether or not they should receive a custodial sentence.
Elsewhere, our brave Prime Minister is intoning nasally that Blighty is back on a war footing, releasing a preposterously jingoistic video, in which he promises to ensure the ‘safety and security of the British people’. Despite his perpetual lack of gravitas – my new LG washing machine’s user manual is more inspiring than our Dear Leader – he is donning his best Churchillian hat and is suddenly willing to throw British boots onto the ground in a Slavic border dispute.
As we can see from the statistics a few paragraphs up, these boots would be filled with overwhelmingly white, male feet: the same demographic who are universally ridiculed in the media and whose poorer elements constitute a forgotten, increasingly unsuccessful demographic. Little wonder he is happy to throw them into Ukraine’s meat grinder; they are of the same ilk whom he has been labelling ‘far right’ for the last few months.
Disturbingly, Ukraine has become the latest covid, in which harbouring a view contrary to the established line results in immediate vilification. Whereas once the only permissible view was ‘more lockdown, more vaccine’, 2025’s catechism has become ‘more weapons, more war’.
Just as it took years for the covid era’s patent insanity to sink into the majority, after three years of conflict (a conflict which Ukraine could never win and will certainly now never win) the number of people wishing to end the war is apparently still vanishingly small.
No wonder perhaps given mainstream media coverage. Across the board, a concerted attempt to deny reality is at play. Take The Telegraph and its Ukraine page for example, its three major commentators ‘dumping’ on Trump over Ukraine here, here and here, whose coverage, like the Spectator’s and practically every other media outlet’s, is universally anti-Trump.
Across the board, a concerted attempt to deny reality is at play. To listen British parliamentary ‘debate’ on the topic is to witness groupthink at its apogee, with sensible questions rebutted as ‘fawning over Putin’ amid ovine jeers of approval from our lame-brained MPs.
Trump is the only person who can see the situation for what it is. There is no good way out of this war; there is no ‘happy ending’. There is only a negotiation to take place, in which the minnow fighter is likely to concede more than they had wished. Russia was always going to win; it was only wishful thinking that fooled people into thinking otherwise and led to the needless death of so many. With the United States rescinding their support, an emasculated and bankrupt (economically, spiritually, morally) Europe has as much chance of defeating the Russian bear as an emaciated chihuahua.
What other outcome is there? The chest-thumping yellowbellies of Europe may wish to pour our savings down a giant churning toilet labelled ‘Ukraine’ and create more debt. Some of it may reach the front line to be promptly blown up, while some of it is siphoned away into offshore accounts. They may want to send our non-existent battalions to face potential death and destruction, but for what purpose? Aside from assuaging their moral pang of conscience, what tangible benefit could any of this have?
This isn’t 1939. Putin is not Hitler. Starmer is certainly not Churchill. Not every debate must be seen through the ludicrous prism of Spitfires, Anderson shelters and the Blitz. If you want Ukraine to keep on fighting, then you are egging on a tit-for-tat spiral into ascending levels of destruction. Referencing a period in which Britain was not a weak, self-loathing mess by all and sundry desperate to shoehorn Churchill into every debate, traduces the man and the history.
In modern discussion, either Zelensky transmogrifies into Churchill, or we, collectively must confront Moscow as Churchill took on Berlin: both variants are vapid and pathetically self-congratulatory. It is difficult to digest change. Trump represents a revolutionary shift in the post-war trajectory of the United States. Realising that continuing along the same path is suicide for the US, resulting in bankruptcy and societal breakdown, he has re-engaged with self-interested common sense, consigning the disastrous experiments of progressive globalists to their rightful place in history’s dustbin.
Whether Trump is nasty or nice is simply irrelevant. What matters is results. Great civilisations of the past were driven by decisiveness and action – two virtues POTUS has in spades. They did not have their success made in committees, focus groups and DEI training sessions whose obsession with false, irreligious morality has bankrupted the West on every metric. They did not live in a world where niceness permitted criminals to go unchecked and rape gangs to proliferate, where resolute action is unseemly.
The elites of Europe continue to kid themselves, remaining unaware that the world has changed overnight. Bereft of ideas, reduced to the mass-tweeting of hollowed and hackneyed utterances, they have yet to realise their utter irrelevancy. Holding grand titles, they imagine themselves important, not realising their utter irrelevancy. They inhabit a phantom world in which rhetoric ranks above all else, spouting endless pieties.
And so, back to those stats. I am young, white and male. No doubt if a general war were to break out, it would be me facing the bullets and bombs, all in the name of ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ and ‘Britain’: a ‘democracy’ which offers no hope of change amid the Uniparty’s grip on power; ‘freedom’ which denies the ability to express oneself on a myriad of topics, least one of society’s new favoured groups be offended; and a ‘Britain’ which has spent the last few decades rapidly dismantling itself culturally, economically and demographically, and whose royal residences now host Islamic religious ceremonies.
No, what I would be fighting for is the dying breaths of a failed, diabolical globalist regime, a structure of vested interests and corruption which prances around feigning virtue while enriching themselves and ensuring the destruction of others. Opposition politics is forbidden, votes in Romania are cancelled, right-wing voices across Europe are ostracised.
Who would die for that? Not me.
