The Claremont Review of Books article - Land’s End. Mass migration has radicalized the United Kingdom - clearly explains that the 'radical' reaction (or wave of 'right-wing thuggery' if you prefer the PM's term) in the UK, is little more than what one would expect given the spate of recent and equally 'radical' events.

Radicalisation does not come from nothing. It is triggered by events. Arguably even the rise of Christianity was triggered by the fall of the Roman Empire.

And there have been plenty of radical events in the UK recently:

• Uncontrolled mass illegal immigration and asylum seeking
• The rape gangs cover-up aka 'white girls don't matter'
• Billions spent on weapons to kill people overseas in the midst of welfare cuts for people at home
• Imprisoning Lucy Connolly for 'hate speech' but not national-treasure Jo "Battery Acid" Brand for her immensely funny BBC-broadcast 'joke' in 2019, clearly aimed at Nigel Farage
• Scottish feminists having to force a Supreme Court ruling to protect female-only spaces from men

As the article points out:

When Keir Starmer scrambled to increase his country’s defense budget to 5% in the wake of Donald Trump’s challenge to Europe’s leaders, his detractors accused him of defending against threats like the Ukraine war, which had no possibility of reaching Britain’s shores, rather than threats like the “small boats,” which already had.

While the UK's Royal Navy successfully prevented multiple military invasions in the past, it is useless to prevent the cultural invasion taking place today. Nelson must be turning in his grave. Talk about 'turning a blind eye' to inconvenient signals.

We used to go to war over someone having their ear cut off, let alone small boats invading England every day.

Instead the navy is focused on sabre-rattling gunboat diplomacy against the 'threat' from Russia and China.

Yet everyone knows that a few nuclear tipped Russian hypersonic missiles would destroy the UK - or the Ukraine for that matter - in a few minutes irrespective of The Royal Navy and Trident submarines.

So it's really ridiculous to call Russia a 'threat' - it simply exists. Get used to it. 

Does anyone really believe - apart from a few superannuated armchair generals living in la-la land - that Russia wants to invade and occupy the UK?

For what? To take on all our social problems, fight yet more muslims wanting an Islamic state and sharia law or to grab some North sea oil that it doesn't need?

Russia 'interferes' with the UK because the UK interferes with Russia and makes no secret of the fact that it supports surrounding Russia with NATO-backed states that obviously threaten the stability of its enormous land and sea borders.

If Libya, Syria and Yugoslavia hadn't proved it already, the war in Ukraine has certainly proved that NATO is an offensive not defensive alliance. It goes to war even when it is not threatened and Article 5 is not triggered and especially when it is not fighting a 'peer' enemy so it can minimise unpopular casualties and equipment losses.

Today's 'surround-strategy' (an updated version of Kennan's containment strategy) is something the USA or China would never accept and England didn't either when it was threatened variously by Wales, Ireland and Scotland in the past.

Why does anyone think a 'United Kingdom' was needed and fought for over centuries, if not for border security?

But as L P Hartley famously said: The past is a foreign country.

Or at least it is these days when history is forgotten, distorted or dumbed down to a few multiple choice answers.