The British State Needs WWIII to Stave Off Civil War

Oliver JJ Lane, a writer and editor for Breitbart London, writes frequently about the growing censorship regime in the U.K., the public’s distrust of both institutional government and Establishment politicians of all labels, the official cover-up of Muslim “grooming” gangs that target and rape British children, and the increasing backlash of native Britons against a ruling class that prioritizes “multiculturalism” and “diversity” over everything else.  A running theme of his articles is that the U.K. is headed for civil war.

Last summer, Lane wrote a piece with this provocative headline: “Britain Preparing for Civil War but Uses Russian Threat As Political Cover, Says London Academic.”  In the piece, he takes direct aim at the U.K. government’s 2025 National Security Strategy.  That document argues that dangerous threats from Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran mean “we have to actively prepare for the possibility of the UK homeland coming under direct threat.”  Citing the need to protect “critical national infrastructure” from foreign enemies who might soon invade the British Isles, the strategy includes plans to reconstitute a “Home Defense” force capable of preventing domestic “sabotage during a crisis” and protecting the country from “enemy states and terrorists.”

In response to the government’s warning of imminent foreign invasion, Lane drew readers’ attention to comments from Professor David Betz, an academic specializing in war studies, who called the National Security Strategy “logically absurd.”  In remarks intended to refute the U.K. government’s “Russia, Russia, Russia” narrative, Betz argued that internal threats to the country are much more significant than any threats coming from foreign powers thousands of miles away.

Describing British society as “low trust, highly fractured, and highly politically factionalized,” Betz warned that “civil conflict” is “increasingly inevitable.”  Then Betz directly accused U.K. authorities of hiding the true intentions behind their overhaul of domestic security forces: “What they’re concerned about is domestic conflict … but that’s completely politically toxic for them to say so publicly, hence the convenience of saying, ‘We need to develop … a citizen’s militia for the protection of critical infrastructure.’  To say that we’re doing this against the potential of Russian attack … is convenient as a pretext.”

By using Professor Betz’s arguments as a counterweight to the British government’s stated national security objectives, Lane deftly suggested to the reader an alternative interpretation of current events.  What if a heavily armed “Home Defense” force has nothing to do with expelling foreign troops, spies, and saboteurs?  What if the bellicose cries of generals and members of parliament have nothing to do with Russia and everything to do with subduing the civilian population?  What if all the polemical pundits who insist that British families must prepare to sacrifice everything (even their children!) for an impending WWIII are really just “playing their part” as propagandists eager to keep the population distracted, fearful, and in line?

Fast-forward to this week, and Lane has written another piece that sharply articulates the disconnect between the government officials preparing Britain for war and the ordinary Britons who will be expected to do the fighting.  With talk of military conscription filling the airwaves and a glut of hyperventilating government officials assuring citizens that war with Russia has already begun, Lane notes “the reality that many young Britons feel the government has actively sabotaged their interests and are wondering why they ought to risk their lives for such a state.”

While Establishment saber-rattlers speak nostalgically of the heroism and self-sacrifice of those Britons who fought and struggled through WWI and WWII, Lane addresses the elephant in the room: a century of “ever-larger welfare” handouts and a multigenerational demographic replacement that will soon render “ethnic Britons” a “minority” in their geographical homeland have transformed British society into something weaker, less unified, less patriotic, and much less capable of self-sacrifice and self-defense.  Many young people, Lane concludes, no longer believe that “fighting for the government is synonymous with fighting for their own interests.”

Although reasonable observers of current events have reached similar conclusions around the West, Lane makes an interesting observation: With increasing frequency, mainstream corporate news institutions are sounding the alarm concerning the public’s lack of interest in fighting and dying in wars instigated and promoted by ruling globalist elites.

He points to a recent article in The Daily Telegraph entitled “Patriots Should Not Fight for the British State,” in which the author argues, “The nation has changed almost beyond recognition since we were last called upon to mobilize and fight a global war.  We are no longer one people, but numerous parallel societies with little to no connection to one another.  Presiding over this is an incompetent bureaucracy wedded to universalist ideas and chiefly concerned with its own survival.”

Lane highlights the argument from another op-ed in The Times in which that author correctly observes that “defending one’s homeland is a question of societal mass mobilization … in the sense of a shared belief in the nation and the culture that is at stake, an awareness that it is at risk and a commitment to defend it.  Without a united population it is difficult to make the trade-offs necessary to transform Britain and its European allies into thoroughly indigestible military targets for our enemies.”

It is as if corporate news institutions are finally awakening to this reality: When you actively destroy national unity, shared history, tradition, and cultural heritage by importing foreigners on an industrial scale, you also destroy national identity.  Young British lads have no interest in fighting and dying for “multiculturalism.”  British parents have no interest in sacrificing their children for “diversity.”  No sane country is interested in sacrificing everything in order to preserve costly “climate change” regulations and safeguard the criminalization of so-called “hate speech.”  No patriot charges up a hill to raise an Antifa or LGBT flag in defense of censorship, government bullying, demographic replacement, and mass surveillance.

Establishment voices in the U.K. are not handling the domestic pushback well.  Lane quotes retired infantry officer Major Robert Lyman: “You folk are so obsessed with what you expect the State to do without once thinking about what you can do for the State. … Blaming the State for everything you don’t like is utter narcissism and is the most deplorable of all human behaviors.  Stop being utter namby-pambies and get a grip!  If war comes, you know that you’ll be lined up in uniform with the rest of us!”

As Lane insightfully observes, what’s unintentionally revealing about Lyman’s bitter reaction is his insistence that young people fight for “the State.”  The military veteran seems to understand that in “multicultural” Britain, there is no country or nation left to defend.  Those sent to die in the meat-grinder of WWIII will do so in defense of the government’s clunky and corrupt bureaucratic machinery.  Without a common culture to protect or a historic people claiming Britain as home, there is nothing left in the U.K. to preserve…except Big Brother and his boot-stamping State.

According to Lane, another retired military officer, Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, has responded to Britons’ general disinterest in WWIII by arguing that anyone who doesn’t want to fight for the government should be expelled from the United Kingdom.  He also says that welfare programs must be cut to pay for war.  In other words, after importing tens of millions of foreigners to take the jobs of native Britons, the military Establishment is giving unhappy and unrepresented Britons a choice: leave your homeland or die for “the State.”

When Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton recently claimed that “more families will know what sacrifice for our nation means,” this is what he had in mind.  No wonder common Brits have little interest in WWIII.  Send the “elites” to war instead!

This article was originally published on American Thinker.