Ukraine: the latest mass delusion

Men account for 88.3% 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% 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 1 April 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 Churchill’s 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 meatgrinder: they are of the same ilk who 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 – one which Ukraine could never win and will certainly now never win – the number of people wishing to end the war is still vanishingly small.

Take The Spectator, for example, whose coverage – like practically every other media outlet – is universally anti-Trump:

The Spectator as of 6 March 2025

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.

The only person who can see the situation for what it is appears to be Trump. 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, 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 yellow-bellies of Europe may wish to pour our savings and more debt down a giant churning toilet labelled ‘Ukraine’ – some of which reaches the front line to be promptly blown up, some of it siphoned away into offshore accounts – or 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. The referencing of a period of time in which Britain was not a weak, self-loathing mess is pathetic in its ceaseless repetition, with everyone and their aunt desperate to shoehorn Churchill into each and every debate. 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.

Levels of cringe previously imagined impossible

It is difficult to digest change. Trump represents a revolutionary shift in the post-war trajectory of the United States. Realising that continuing on the same path would result 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.

It does not matter whether Trump is nasty or nice. What matters is results. If one surveys history and takes stock of great civilisations of the past, they were driven by decisiveness and action – two virtues POTUS has in spades. Those societies in history whose illustrious past adorn our history books did not have their success made in committees, focus groups and DEI training sessions. Obsession with false, irreligious morality has bankrupted the West on every metric, enfeebling us. We live in a world where our niceness permits criminals to go unchecked and rape gangs to proliferate, and where resolute action is unseemly.

The elites of Europe continue to kid themselves, not quite fully aware that the world has changed overnight. They are bereft of ideas, reduced to mass tweeting hollowed, hackneyed utterances. 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 statistics. 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, lest 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 cancelled, right-wing voices across Europe ostracised.

Who’d die for that? Not me.