From ... in History Political Censorship Warfare Propaganda — Jan 5, 2026

The USA to the Rescue? The Implications of the National Security Strategy Document

We have tagged this article as propaganda as it imposes a serious spin on the topic.
If not more explanation provided, this article is included as propaganda because it shows clear manufacture from a government controlled dialectic, where a topic is misdirected by some actors in order to mislead people during early stages of a narrative.

Britain may well be a more divided society today than at any other time since the Civil War from 1642 to 1651. One of the principal causes of this societal divide is the State’s policy of forcing globalist-driven transformation down the population’s throats, aided and abetted mainly by State-driven media and a clampdown on freedom of speech. Part of this globalist transformation has been the capture of the state institutions: the judiciary, the police, the civil service, the health service, the mainstream media, the education system, and local and national governments.

The principles of Common Law, intrinsic natural freedoms such as freedom of speech and freedom of movement, have been abrogated by the State. On one side of the divide are those who realise what has been going on, populated, no doubt, in part by regular followers of UK Column and other dissident media. On the other side are those who either do not realise what is going on or those who abhor traditional British values, and believe that a complete transformation of society is necessary. By definition, there can be virtually no common ground between those polar opposites. One side believes fervently in the fundamental dignity of the human condition and the freedom to follow one’s destiny, and the other in the submission of the individual to the interests of a greater power.

For people who are aware of how individual rights have been stolen and feel the oppressive heel of the State, a return of the people’s dignity and fundamental freedoms may well seem to be an impossible goal, as all the odds are stacked against them. The ballot box today only offers the choice of the uniparty, and has done so for all of this century, as discussed here. UK Column and others are doing their best to enlighten the population, but increasing censorship and clampdowns on social media are effectively keeping their influence on the population as a whole relatively minimal, while the legacy media broadcasts the State’s line. When the ballot box fails to offer any solution, the only, and last, resort is violence, a far-from-optimal solution.

UK Column often finishes its news with an apology for its depressing nature, but it is merely reporting the reality of today’s society. The situation in Britain today is depressing indeed, with virtually no realistic hope of a return to true democracy, for the rights of British people to be once again respected, and for the institutions to once again work for the population rather than against it.

This isn’t a uniquely British problem; it’s common throughout Europe. Living on the Continent as I do, I see the same authoritarian intrusion of the State into people’s lives; the suppression of basic freedoms first-hand. A dark cloud of despair covers nearly the entire European continent, and there would seem very little hope for any improvement, including the imminent prospect of carbon quotas, travel quotas, central bank digital currencies, the social credit system, and open war with Russia. In other words, as bleak as the situation is today, it looks like it is becoming much bleaker over the next few years.

It would be easy to completely give up, resign ourselves to the inevitable like a prisoner on death row, or simply hide our heads in the sand and pretend that none of this is real. But there may well be a very real chance of escaping from this situation, and this has appeared in the form of the National Security Strategy of the United States of America policy document which was published in November 2025.

This article will look at the implications for Britain and Europe detailed in this document, and how it offers hope to all Europeans who want a return to a decent way of life.

The document starts with a critique of globalisation and transnationalism already in place in America:

And they lashed American policy to a network of international institutions, some of which are driven by outright anti-Americanism and many by a transnationalism that explicitly seeks to dissolve individual state sovereignty.

Here, the leitmotif that runs through the document is introduced; namely, the primacy of the nation state above globalist control.

The principle of fundamental human rights is also addressed from the outset:

First and foremost, we want the continued survival and safety of the United States as an independent, sovereign republic whose government secures the God-given natural rights of its citizens and prioritizes their well-being and interests.

The principle that natural human rights are God-given and are not for the state to withhold or dispense at its whim is anathema to the global elites, who hold a diametrically opposite view while paying lip service to the idea of rights as something to be cherished.

The importance of the strength of the family to the health of the nation is also addressed. UK Column has long exposed the travesty of the secretive Family Courts in which children are stolen from their parents by the State and institutionalised, or worse. Indeed, institutionalisation of children is just one prong of a multi-faceted state-driven attack on the sanctity of the family, which came to a head during the Covid pandemic. The US Government intends to redress this attack on families:

We want a gainfully employed citizenry — with no one sitting on the sidelines — who take satisfaction from knowing that their work is essential to the prosperity of our nation and to the well-being of individuals and families. This cannot be accomplished without growing numbers of strong, traditional families that raise healthy children.

In those two linked phrases, the Government seeks not only to reinforce traditional families, but to create a gainfully employed citizenry with no one sitting on the sidelines. This flies in the face of the concept of Universal Basic Income (UBI) and the state being the main source of income and employment. Further on, they hammer the point home by “rooting out so-called ‘DEI’ and other discriminatory and anti-competitive practices that degrade our institutions”.

By rooting out DEI ideology, the US Government declares open season on such organisations as Black Lives Matter, Common Purpose, and a host of other international organisations funded by ideologically-driven billionaires, Foundations, NGOs, or the UN. They do not seek to come to some arrangement with DEI; they want to root it out, vigorously. This will go to the heart of training within the main US institutions that have received DEI indoctrination from the education system through to the Army.

This broad frontal attack on one of the flagship globalist beliefs will undoubtedly not go down without determined pushback. The document goes even further, confronting the nonsensical thrust of white guilt:

We want an America that cherishes its past glories and its heroes, and that looks forward to a new golden age … We will be unapologetic about our country’s past and present while respectful of other countries’ differing religions, cultures, and governing systems.

The practice of tearing down statues of national heroes, and dishonouring the nation’s achievements to make way for so-called progressive ideologies, is over.

The US Government does not consider that the open war on globalism and wokeism should be limited to the US. It sees its duty as extending that war to their partners and allies, especially in the Western Hemisphere, introducing a revised 21st century version of the Monroe Doctrine. The Government considers this to be a core foreign policy interest: “We want to support our allies in preserving the freedom and security of Europe, while restoring Europe’s civilizational self-confidence and Western identity”.

In other words, just as the US helped spread DEI and wokeism to the world, it is now intending to eliminate it, specifically in Europe, where it has taken deep root and flourished. Using the phrase “restoring Europe’s Western identity” clearly implies that Western identity has been lost.

It adds, “Our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory”, using as an example the war in Ukraine:

A large European majority wants peace, yet that desire is not translated into policy, in large measure because of those governments’ subversion of democratic processes. This is strategically important to the United States precisely because European states cannot reform themselves if they are trapped in political crisis.

This statement echoes the sentiment first presented to the shocked assembly of Europe’s elites at the Munich Security Conference by J. D. Vance on 14 February 2025. Namely, he said that the worst enemy of Europe is its own political elite, who have subverted the entire democratic process, denying Europeans the democracy which they believe that they should have. The US Government, thusly aligning itself with what it believes to be the wishes of Europeans, has centred the European elites specifically in its crosshairs. But the target isn’t just the likes of Macron, Starmer and Merz; it is also the European Union itself. The US will actively:

... enable Europe to stand on its own feet and operate as a group of aligned sovereign nations, including by taking primary responsibility for its own defense, without being dominated by any adversarial power.

The phrase “aligned sovereign nations” is exactly the opposite of the trajectory intended by the European Union, which intends to have its own army and its own direct taxation, and actively intervenes in national elections where the candidate is anti-EU, such as in Romania. The US will do this by “cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations”. In this context, they consider that “Britain and Ireland is of particular strategic importance to the US”.

The targeting of the EU isn’t just by diplomatic inference, it is also very specific:

The larger issues facing Europe include activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence.

This attack is particularly specific and damning. The loss of national identities is not an accident of history; it is deliberate policy. The banning of English flags on English council buildings springs immediately to mind. The US, with its gloves off, accuses the EU of the censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, deliberately creating strife and undermining sovereignty. These same words could be used to describe the Soviet socialist system. The Security Document goes even further in its condemnation of the EU:

Continental Europe has been losing share of global GDP — down from 25 percent in 1990 to 14 percent today — partly owing to national and transnational regulations that undermine creativity and industriousness.

My previous articles on wildfires in France and Portugal have focused in on some of the immense damage that has been done by these regulations. They drive the point home:

We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation … But this economic decline is eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure.

They actually accuse the EU of erasing European civilisation, expressing a stark reality which many Europeans feel, but are afraid to express openly.

The document highlights a number of policy areas that it wants to see corrected urgently. It states in block capitals: “THE ERA OF MASS MIGRATION IS OVER”. To underline the seriousness of the point, the same phrase is repeated a few lines further on in the document. It cites the use of mass migration to create voting blocks within countries, which in turn can be used to influence the politics of that country against the interests of its indigenous population. It underlines the concept of national sovereignty: ‘

We stand for the sovereign rights of nations, against the sovereignty-sapping incursions of the most intrusive transnational organizations, and for reforming those institutions so that they assist rather than hinder individual sovereignty and further American interests … In particular, the rights of free speech, freedom of religion and of conscience, and the right to choose and steer our common government are core rights that must never be infringed.

The right to freedom of speech is indeed a core right which has been dealt with on UK Column, and it is one of the key freedoms which distinguishes a country from being free from one under authoritarian rule.

The opening shots were fired in this transatlantic conflict between Europe and the US over the subjects of freedom of speech and censorship. The EU considers that it can muzzle the internet, particularly the parts of the internet which do not comply with pro-EU ideology and policy.

Thus, Elon Musk accused the EU of attempting to coerce him into censoring X, while at the same time not revealing that coercion. He refused to comply, and was smacked with a €120 million fine. Musk retorted, saying that the “EU should be abolished”. US senators and congressmen have come out in support of Musk, who adds (presumably with some glee) that X is now the most important public source of information across the EU. Musk called the Commission’s announcement “bullshit”. Separately, X terminated the Commission’s ad account for embedding a link in their video of the fine announcement, apparently to artificially boost their reach.

The Trump Administration issued its own responses, mostly on X. In reference to rumours of the impending fine, Vice President J. D. Vance said that “the EU should be supporting free speech not attacking American companies over garbage”. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the fine “an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments” and said that “the days of censoring Americans online are over.” FCC Chairman Brendan Carr pointed out with dark humour that “Europe is fining a successful U.S. tech company for being a successful U.S. tech company” and characterised the fine as a tax on “Americans to subsidise a continent held back by Europe’s own suffocating regulations.” Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick posted that the EU’s “Digital Services Act is designed to stifle free speech and American tech companies,” and EU Ambassador Andrew Puzder said that the “excessive €120M fine is the result of EU regulatory overreach targeting American innovation.” Trump said that he would respond comprehensively to the X fine at a later time, but emphasised the point made in the strategy document that the EU is going in a bad direction.

Meanwhile, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, joined in the general condemnation of the EU, echoing the strategy document’s position that the EU has a real problem and that it stifled business.

This kind of EU censorship is exactly the kind of thing that the US Government declares that it will attempt to curtail in Europe. An early tangible implementation of the National Security Strategy’s plan to penalise censorship in Europe is to refuse visa applications to all Europeans who work in the censorship industry, explicitly including fact-checkers, moderators, and censors. As a result, Ofcom employees may want to reconsider their holidays in Florida for the foreseeable future.

The US Government, both at home and in Europe, has set as its guiding policy strategy to eliminate DEI and its associated woke belief systems, to restore the sovereignty of nations, curtail the power of the globalist and billionaire organisations, and restore democracy to Europe, along with fundamental rights and freedoms. This has now set the US on a clear collision path with the EU, amongst other powerful global players. The US has laid out its position, a very clear challenge to the global elites and to the EU: either give Europe back its individual sovereignties and freedoms, or we will force you to do so. Since the publishing of this National Security Strategy document in November, the European governing elites can be under absolutely no illusions about the challenges that they are about to face.

This conflict between the EU and the US couldn’t come at a worse time for the EU, when it is not only beleaguered from the outside, but riven with division and in danger of disintegrating from internal centrifugal forces. Let’s take just the cases of the two main pillars of the EU, Germany and France, as illustrations.

Germany’s second-largest political party, the Alternatif fur Deutschland (AfD) has leaving the EU as one of its key policies. The German Federal Court for Protecting the Constitution is doing all that it can to ban both the party and its leading members from public office. The AfD policy goals align closely with the National Security Strategy document, and because of that, the party is very likely to receive active support from the US over the coming months. The German Government is a rainbow coalition of parties, many of which intensely distrust and dislike each other. This rainbow coalition has so far just about managed to hold together by the larger two parties, ceding to unpopular policies to appease the smaller parties as their price for propping up the Government, thus causing disaffected supporters of both parties to flock to the AfD, which in recent polls is continuing to gain momentum. The AfD may achieve majority status alone without the help of the US Government, but with their support, that will surely accelerate the process. An EU without Europe’s largest economy at its core is no EU at all.

France has its own major problems, including an unsustainable debt trajectory, coupled with a declining credit rating, which has prompted both the IMF and the ECB to exert immense pressure on France into making massive budgetary changes, including increased taxation and decreased welfare spending. None of this goes down well with either the voters or the Assemblée Nationale — the French Parliament. France’s Budget for 2026 was rejected by 404 votes Against to one For, with still no prospect of a budget that would satisfy both the opposing interests of the IMF, the ECB, and the legislators. In addition, since 2024, there have been four different governments toppled. Macron, having run out of candidates for Prime Minister, turned in desperation to one of his previously failed ones.

Subsequent negotiations between representatives of the Senate (equivalent of the Lords) and the Deputies (MPs) attempting to find an acceptable compromise on the 2026 French Budget broke down almost immediately. In order to avoid another embarrassing rejection of the Budget, emergency measures based on Article 49 of the French Constitution were invoked to ensure that the Government had some form of budgetary regime available. This meant that the 2025 Budget was rolled over to be used once again in 2026. But the 2025 Budget had also been rejected the year before, so that the 2024 Budget was in fact rolled over twice. Although the French Prime Minister had on multiple occasions announced that he would resign and that the Government would be brought down if his 2026 Budget wasn’t approved, he chose to cling on to power in the end.

The end result of this fiasco is a Budget that doesn’t take into account any of the IMF and ECB demands for redressing both the deficit and the debt. This in turns means that factors contributing to the current appalling state of French finances will simply get even worse. The ECB tolerates a budget deficit of 3%, whereas even the optimistic French finance ministry has announced a 5.4% deficit, which is likely to be a considerable underestimation of the real figure. Expectations for the deficit for 2026 are an eye-watering 6% budgetary deficit.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister, Lecornu, who still clings on to power despite failing to pass his Budget, appears increasingly precarious, along with his Government. The credit ratings agencies are looking hard at the current chaos in France, and at least two (Moody’s and Scope) anticipate further ratings downgrades in the Spring Announcements, making the situation worse still.

At the same time, France’s debt rating is degenerating, with both Moody’s and Scope expected to downgrade it further in the coming months. The resulting debt spiral makes the task of securing a budget which satisfies both the lenders and the legislators even more difficult to achieve. With a popularity rating of just 11%, Macron is barely clinging on to power. In addition, he is very enthusiastic about censorship in France and the war in Ukraine, both of which put him personally on a collision course with the US. A French sovereign default is now being talked about, which could result in France being ejected from the Euro zone, or alternatively France’s debt crisis could cause bank collapses and potentially contagion within the Euro zone. With both Germany and France at the heart of the EU teetering, prime ministers such as Viktor Orban on the outskirts, publicly stated the obvious in summer 2025: that “the EU is on a road to ruin”.

But the British political elite won’t be able to sit comfortably on the sidelines while the US dismantles the EU, because Britain and Ireland have been singled out in the National Security Strategy document as strategically important. The US plans to halt civilisational erasure, restore democracy, end mass migration, remove censorship, and restore the unapologetic celebration of European nature and identity. In addition, the document says: “We reject the disastrous ‘climate change’ and ‘Net Zero’ ideologies that have so greatly harmed Europe, threaten the United States, and subsidize our adversaries”. Furthermore, in a week when a British Special Forces soldier was killed in Ukraine, the US states that: “It is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine”.

In short, just about all the flagship policies that the UK uniparty governments have promoted over the last 20 years or so will be vigorously opposed by the US. Just as the X versus EU incident has opened hostilities between the US and the EU, the US President’s lawsuit against the BBC for deliberately and maliciously manipulating the news in order to portray him as saying something that he didn’t was initiated, in a continuation of the BBC’s ideological campaign against the President. At stake is a sum of between $1 billion and $10 billion in damages against the BBC. The political elite in Britain has been put on notice: the US is coming after them. All this comes at a time when the latest YouGov polls show both Labour and Conservative parties as having less than 20% of the vote, with the Reform Party nearly 10% ahead. This suggests very strongly that US intervention in Britain against the uniparty and political elite aligns with the mood of the country.

It would seem that for the third time in 120 years, the US is coming to the salvation of Europe, and if the US does achieve the changes in the UK as defined in the National Security Strategy document, then maybe the foundations for a return to traditional Western values can be restored, and the healing of Britain’s riven society can begin.

But, in publishing this no-holds-barred National Security Strategy document, the current US Government has created some very powerful enemies. Donald Trump has already survived two assassination attempts; more may well follow. After the end of the Ukraine war, many Ukrainian extremists of the Azov persuasion may well find themselves on some globalists’ payroll and tasked with removing the US Head of State.

The future of freedom in Britain and a return to democracy may yet depend on the inaccuracy of an assassin’s bullet. Yet, for now, there is real hope, whereas not so long ago, there was hardly any at all.

Read the full article at the original website

References:

Search Results

Bookmarks

The USA to the Rescue? The Implications of the National Security Strategy Document

Search Results

Bookmarks

Subscribe to The Article Feed