top of page

Self-Defence for Self-Determination


This is Part 10 of our series "Basic Principles of Patriotic Sovereignty". These principles lay out the fundamentals which underpin a national ideology. If you believe in "the nation" as an organising principle of politics, then you believe in these principles. You judge national policies on whether they accord with, or contradict, these principles.

Pic: From A Force For Good's Street Stall in Glasgow on 29-6-24, commemorating Armed Forces Day.

 "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

From a speech by Henry Temple, Lord Palmerston (Prime Minister, 1855-8, 1859-65)

when he was Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons, 1 March 1848.


The ability of a nation to defend itself is a basic principle of patriotic sovereignty.


It should go without saying that the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force should always be "combat ready".


This article will concentrate on the political matter of "ready for what"!  



The Prussian General, Carl Von Clausewitz (1780-1831) said something to the effect that "war is politics by other means". By this he meant that military force can be used to accomplish a political aim, when other means of persuasion have failed.  


This definition means that Armed Forces can be used for more than "the Defence of the Realm"; they can be used to promote a nation's political aims on the world stage.


These aims can be strategic (related to the nation's overall interests involving, for example, secure energy supplies) or ideological ("exporting democracy"). A national military can also be exploited by another country for that foreign country's interest!


Whether a nation concentrates on defending its own interests, or becomes more belligerent on the world stage in order to promote its strategic interests, or ideological notions, or acts in the service of others, will depend upon its politicians and their priorities, and what they regard as "the national interest".


That is to say, the question of "interest" is a political question, and the answer will differ depending upon who is in charge.


In any case, where a nation allows its military to be exploited by another country, then it has certainly lost a degree of its sovereignty – its authority over itself.



This Paper – Part 10 of "Basic Principles of Patriotic Sovereignty" – is intended to lay out a proper foundation for British Foreign and Defence Policy, based on the political concept of British National Sovereignty.

We do this in order that we can use such guidelines to gauge appropriate action when faced with potential conflict.


This is because, too often, our political leaders never work out their positions from fundamental principles.


Too often, our politicians flounder around, and speak to us like we're children: "We must go to war against [insert dictator or country] because he's a bad man, or they're undemocratic."


We especially need to do this because our country is entering a dangerous period – with calls for increasing conflict against Russia and Iran.



The purpose of British Foreign Policy must be to secure the best interests of our country and its people on the international stage.

As we say, what is "in the best interest" will depend upon different political points of view.


However, we should be guided by the Moral Principle of looking after our own backyard and putting our own people first.


In this approach, as per Lord Palmerston's edict, above, "we have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies".


When facing possible conflict, we judge our Interests by asking:

1- What is there for us – the British people – to win?

2- If there is something for us to win, then do we need it?

3- If we need it, then is it worth the struggle?

4- That is, what tangible benefits will we receive?

5- And what will be the inevitable negative consequences?


A Foreign Policy for British National Sovereignty, guided by that Moral Principle, and interrogated by those 5 Questions, will ensure:

a- We do not interfere where it is none of our business.

b- We do not impose our moral values and political ideas on other peoples and cultures. The best we can do is set a good example.

c- We do not indulge in self-righteous moralising to describe our foreign policy and "defence" activities. To do so will be hypocritical because it will require us to overlook similar activity in other countries to which we show no concern; and because it will require us to overlook the abuses of any new administration which our action helps to install.

d- We do not support other countries in their conflicts unless there is something necessary for us to win, and tangible benefits for our country which outweigh the inevitable negative consequences.



The purpose of our Armed Forces must be to defend our British national interests, at home and abroad. This includes our United Kingdom territory, seas and air, and borders, our people wherever they may be in the world, our British Overseas Territories, and our vital strategic interests worldwide.


Again, what those "interests" specifically are, is always going to be debatable. That's the matter of politics. Some people will see an "interest" in having a war. Others won't!



Those who want to enlist the UK's Armed Forces into foreign conflicts will, of course, attempt to tell us that such foreign interests are also "our" interests; and that our strategic interests are somehow threatened also.


For our politicians to discern the truth of the matter will depend upon the ideological and/or financial independence of our politicians from such foreign interests; and the inherent patriotism, diplomatic skill, and intellectual wisdom of such independent politicians.


Often, the people who don't want a war will be called "appeasers", "isolationists", "far right" or "far left", maybe "racists" and "anti-Semitic", or even "traitors" or "cowards"!


A Force For Good patriotically supports our troops.


That's why we don't want them fighting and being killed for someone else's interests.


There should be no foreign wars for foreign causes.


Indeed, we maintain that the default position should always be against war



It might be possible to "win" a small conflict. The Falklands War comes to mind.


But nobody really wins big wars. Everybody loses ultimately!


Most big wars are destructive to all the nations involved, often on a long-term basis – demographically, socially, economically, and geo-politically.

That's why, as per our 5 Questions above, we must always consider the inevitable negative consequences, because there will be many!


It was the Duke of Wellington who said, "The business of war, and indeed life, is guessing what is on the other side of the hill."

In that sense, starting a war without caring about the inevitable negative consequences is the height of irresponsibility and bad statesmanship.


For example, David Cameron PM enthusiastically worked to depose Col. Gaddafi in 2011 – even though it was Gaddafi who was preventing the mass immigration invasion across the Mediterranean to which Europe is now subjected. Cameron didn't think about the inevitable negative consequences of his actions, or if he did, he didn't care! In what possible way has Britain benefited from that self-imposed disaster?

Current sanctions against Russia, and the attack on the Nordstream pipeline, has put the cost of fuel up, which has caused economic problems for many people in Europe, and which has badly damaged German industry. Ironically Russian titanium is no longer available to build US Fighter Jets, which has compromised their quality!

War can also corrupt the soul, as people are led to accept horrific forms of killing human beings as somehow "justifiable". For example, see the extent to which the murder bombing of civilians, a form of terrorism begun in WW2, has become an acceptable – instead of a morally degenerate, utterly condemnable – form of warfare.


If we commit our precious and brave servicemen and women to conflict, then we need to be sure that it is in our national interest so to do, using the above considerations.


If we conclude that our interests are indeed involved, in a manner which outweighs the inevitable negative consequences, then we should only act if:

  • the aim of the conflict is clear;

  • that it is possible to achieve;

  • that it is achievable quickly;

  • and that the long-term post-conflict role for our soldiers is a safe and sustainable one.


If these requirements are not met, in full, then we should not put our soldiers at risk.



Consider the arguments often used to justify War:


"We Should Support War if the UN Approves"

This argument can only strengthen globalist institutions at the expense of national sovereignty. Politicians who support this argument are not anti-war, but rather pro-UN. Their primary aim is to strengthen globalist institutions rather than strengthen national sovereignty.


"This Dictator is in Breach of UN Resolutions"

UN resolutions do not have the force of law, and there is nothing in our constitution which requires a British government to seek to enforce them as if they did. It is not our job to run about the world imposing UN resolutions. Other countries are in breach of UN resolutions and we do not go to war with them.


"We Should Oppose Brutal States Like Russia and Iran"

It is not our business to oppose a state simply because it is "brutal", by someone's definition. If we decide to oppose all "brutal" regimes then we will either have a lot of opposing to do, or we will need to become highly selective and, consequently, hypocritical.


We should only get involved when it is our business, and when it is in the best interests of our own country and people measured by the considerations above.


"This Dictator is an Evil Tyrant"

This is the simplest and most effective "argument" used by pro-war agitators. It seems to work every time! However, it should be for the people of "the dictator's" nation to deal with the matter, if they choose so to do.

It is also to be hypocritical because whoever replaces "the dictator" may be just as bad, and the people now calling for that person's head will look the other way when the new regime attacks its old opponents.


"We Must Bring Democracy to Them"     

We should not judge foreign countries by our own "democratic" standards – however those may be measured! Nor should we impose our political way of doing things upon different political cultures.


"We Must Not Appease Dictators"

The "appeasement" issue only arises if "the dictator" can be shown to be a direct threat to our national interests at home and abroad.



You can tell if a politician has British national sovereignty in his or her bones, and puts the UK first, by listening carefully to them.


Does he or she speak more often about the importance of defending foreign countries, foreign borders and foreign people, or do they speak first and – ideally – only, about the United Kingdom?


Are they trying to make us obsess about what is happening to foreign countries rather than our own country?


Are they trying to divert us into grand ideological and "democratic" designs for foreign countries, rather than looking after our own backyard?


If they speak more about other countries, and take visits to such countries, and pose for the cameras in such countries, then they are wasting their precious time, and their privileged position on the concerns of foreign nations. They are not putting our country first!


To vote for such a person means we are voting for, and being governed by, someone who, whether willingly or unwillingly, whether consciously or unconsciously, is putting foreign interests before our own interests.


It means our vote for him or her is not a sovereign vote. It is a vote for someone to exercise their power on behalf of another country, not our own.


It is as simple as that, and based on the last few years, most of our mainstream politicians, especially the leaders, have failed that test. Most of them will do so again, unless the idea of putting the UK first comes back into fashion!


It is in the spirit of encouraging such national sovereignty that we compiled this 10-part series.


As we face the 75th-ever British General Election since the Union of Parliaments in 1707, we must hope and pray that sovereign politicians will come to the fore – politicians free from foreign interests. Politicians who will maintain the British Armed Forces for the purpose of self-defence for self-determination, who at the same time, will advocate for peace and against war, guided by the fundamental principles herein explained.


Part 10: Self-Defence for Self-Determination.


If you think our comprehensive and educational research and publications are worth reading, then please help us to keep producing this valuable work.


Featured Posts
Recent Posts
bottom of page