|
THE RUDIMENTS OF DEFENCE POLICY There are people who regard the armed forces as (like the police) just another branch of the Race Relations Industry ; so it needs saying at the outset that our armed forces exist for one purpose only, and that is the defence of this country and its people against foreign aggression. The last two words require some definition: ‘foreign’ means not sharing our ancestry or cultural loyalties; and ‘aggression’ means attempts to occupy or take over the governance of our homeland. Clear enough so far? Then we may sensibly debate the current furore generated by General Sir Richard Dannatt’s comments regarding present operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and – to the acute embarrassment of Whitehall – the ethical and political context of those operations. As recently appointed Chief of the General Staff his candid observations on such matters command close attention, since they endorse public anxieties regarding this government’s domestic and foreign policies. The General is clearly unhappy about the effects of Islamic infiltration on public security and the indigenous culture. And he obviously shares the view of all real patriots that misconceived foreign adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere can only exacerbate our own security problems, already serious enough from uncontrolled immigration. But take a step back from the detailed content of the General’s remarks and ponder the division opening between the political establishment and those directly involved in defending this country against foreign domination. Note first that a renegade government is at risk from only two sources: a rebellious electorate and an irresistible coup d’etat. The present government is justifiably confident that given a feeble ‘opposition’, mass media support and voter apathy - the electorate is nothing to worry about; and that leaves a coup d’etat as the only potential threat. Consequently, with the disastrous consequences of the alien invasion and EU governance becoming ever more apparent, the Whitehall renegades have a vested interest in keeping the armed forces well out of the way in pointless foreign imbroglios, allegedly to improve national security! And this notwithstanding the fact that top security officials are saying the number of potential alien terrorists now in Britain ‘runs into many thousands’. Anyone still functioning between the ears knows that alien terrorism cannot be prevented so long as there is a sizeable alien population in this country. It therefore follows that deportation of most aliens is the only security measure with any credibility; and that even a successful campaign by our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan can only exacerbate the terrorist threat here in ‘multi-cultural’ Britain.. This being so, what are British troops doing out there that could justify the casualties and massive expenditure involved? The first rule of warfare is ‘know thine enemy’; so national defence policy must be seen to relate to those foreign powers, agencies, ideologies and peoples bent on occupying our homeland or wishing to take over its governance. There being no realistic prospect of a military assault by any country hostile to Britain, an unarmed silent invasion abetted by renegade politicians becomes its only remaining strategy. After all, had several million Communist immigrants entered this country, why would the Soviet Union have needed to do any sabre-rattling? And now, with several million Muslims swarming in our towns, cities, government agencies, schools, colleges, police and mass media, who needs a holy war declaration to conquer the infidels? Added to which, renegade politicians, officials and media accomplices show no inclination to resist the alien occupation and subversion of our indigenous culture, security and institutions anyway. Muslim immigrants have thus achieved far more than any of their parent countries could ever have dreamed possible by other means. In short, Britain, like some other Western countries, is losing the Third World War without a shot being fired . In these circumstances it therefore makes every kind of sense for the British armed forces to concentrate their attention on the enemy within our borders; and that enemy has to include renegade elements in the indigenous population. There can be little doubt that not only their commanding officers but also rank and file servicemen are nowadays reflecting on the fundamental absurdity of their present deployment when their homeland is already being surrendered by a renegade government back home. One can imagine the feelings of those injured servicemen in a British hospital being abused by Muslims given open access to the wards. And of those servicemen on leave witnessing the alien infestation of their home neighbourhoods while they themselves are on notice to ‘serve’ in Iraq or Afghanistan. Be assured, therefore, that renegade politicians have every reason to feel nervous about the mounting disaffection of the country’s defence forces. General Darratt’s carefully-phrased public doubts about the Army’s present deployment and its political context could be seen as a coded signal for a radical change in foreign and domestic policy. And while the Army will always be a dutiful and well-disciplined force, its morale is crucially dependent on confidence in the judgement and good faith of the political regime it is obliged to serve. So note well the military correspondents’ reports of mounting unease among servicemen about their present role in Iraq and Afghanistan, notwithstanding the clipped, stiff-upper-lip responses of some senior officers on camera. That unease is certainly reflected in the British population at large. Peering ahead, it is therefore quite conceivable that mounting inter-racial tensions and major terrorist outrages in the UK could finally require military back-up of an overstretched police force. As that situation would result in armed confrontation with the indigenous population during any major fracas, the strain on rank and file loyalties would become intolerable enough to make a military coup d’etat almost inevitable. Such a scenario has always been derided by a justifiably complacent Establishment; but it is later than such people think, and their dismissive comments begin to sound like whistling in the dark. F Kimbal Johnson October 2006
|