Why Does Britain Want to Go to War with Russia? By Richard Miller (Londonistan)

As Trump has said, Europe, and especially Britain under socialist Starmer, seems to want to desperately put White British men, and now women, in the meat grinder once more. Ideally, if there was a war, immigrants should prove their loyalty to the land they have come to fleece by going on the front lines. But you can be sure that won't happen, as wars have the benefit to the elites, of eliminating native Whites so migrants can be brought in. Thus, without World War II, Australia would have had more of a fight to replace its Anglo population with no "populate or perish" genocide program, leading to multiculturalism and Asianisation. Every modern war brings "refugees" which serve to demographically dilute the local population.

But this proposed war with Russia, if it fully gets going, will be different. If it goes nuclear, Russia has the Satan II hypersonic missile, which could wipe out the country with one burst. As well, there are nuclear torpedos which could cause a radioactive tsunami 100 feet high, destroying coastal cities with a radioactive deluge. There is no real defence to this technology.

But if the war is conventional for a while, as argued below, it will be largely White British males who die, not the migrants and illegals who will have a field day … until the end.

https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/will-british-boots-on-the-ground

"A reader recently asked me if Britain, France, and Germany may consider conscripting recent immigrants to join the fight against Ivan in Ukraine. The question reminded me of the famous aria, "Non più andrai" in Mozart's Marriage of Figaro, in which Count Almaviva finds the lustful Cherubino hiding in Susanna's quarters. On the spot, the Count commissions the boy for military service and sends him packing to a barracks outside of Sevilla. Figaro then mocks Cherubino with the song "Non più andrai":

You shall go no more, lustful butterfly,
Day and night flitting to and fro;
Disturbing ladies in their repose …

Now you shall be among soldiers …

Plenty of honour, little pay!
And instead of dancing the fandango,
A march through the mud.

Feminists like to bellyache about the patriarchy being hard on women. They forget the millions of young men who have been sent abroad to march through the mud and get shot, bayonetted, and blown to smithereens.

With Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron, and Ursula von der Leyen talking a big game about sending British and European troops to fight it out with Ivan in the Donbas, will they conscript recent male immigrants to Britain, France, and Germany? Or will they leave those fellows back home to keep the girls company?

After the Germans lost World War I, Hitler complained that the Germans were terrible at propaganda compared to the English and Americans. One notable exception was in the summer of 1917, when a large number of American soldiers were quartered in England for a few months before entering the war on the Continent. Sensing that British soldiers might be a little nervous about what the Yanks were doing when they were on leave in England, the Germans dropped a bunch of leaflets on British trenches with an image of an English girl in bed with an American soldier captioned with the rhetorical question, "Hey Tommy, what's going on back home?"

During World War II, the Germans played a similar psychological trick on American soldiers with their "Two years is a long time for any girl" and "The girl you left behind" leaflet campaign, proclaiming the girls back home were hanging out with fat cat bankers who were profiting from the boys fighting it out with Jerry in Europe.

During the American Civil War, the U.S. government conscripted recent Irish immigrants shortly after they got off the boat, which resulted in serious draft riots in New York City.

If Keir Starmer puts British boots on the ground in Ukraine and the fighting gets hot, will he conscript recent male immigrants to join the fight?"