Junte-se a nós no Telegram , Twitter e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

Na ilha da Grã-Bretanha há três países: Inglaterra, Escócia e País de Gales. Nos tempos do Império Romano, a Grã-Bretanha, chamada de Britânia, era ocupada por britânicos (ou bretões). Daí o nome da ilha. Por que existe essa divisão de países? Durante a Idade Média, tribos bárbaras saíram da atual Dinamarca e da Saxônia para conquistar a Grã-Bretanha e expulsar os britânicos, um povo celta, de suas terras. Eram os anglos e os saxões, que se misturaram entre si e deram origem à Inglaterra, ou Terra dos Anglos. Uma parte dos britânicos expulsos foi para um pedaço da França que ganhou o nome de Bretanha, fazendo com que o nome Grã-Bretanha se tornasse conveniente para diferenciar a grande ilha da terra continental dos bretões. Outra parte ficou encurralada no diminuto País de Gales, a terra de onde o Rei Artur, cristão, tentava resistir e reconquistar a terra perdida para os bárbaros infiéis.

Ora, dado o insucesso do pobre rei celta, por que será que a Inglaterra resolveu criar, no período elisabetano, o Império Britânico? E não, digamos, um Império Inglês?

A resposta está na mitologia em torno da fundação da Inglaterra. Ainda na Alta Idade Média, uma obra anônima intitulada Historia Brittonum alegava que o primeiro rei britânico havia sido um certo Brutus de Troia, que era descendente de Enéas, mítico fundador de Roma. No século XII, um clérigo galês com muito talento literário chamado Godofredo de Monmouth fez as vezes de historiador com a obra Historia Regum Brittaniae, na qual descreve até a noite de amor na qual o Rei Arthur foi concebido. Agora Arthur era um rei britânico descendente de Enéas e de Brutus, que nomeia a ilha como Britânia em homenagem a si próprio. Godofredo inventou também uma porção de conquistas nórdicas para Arthur.

Nos albores da modernidade, a mitologia britânica, inventada na Idade Média, ganha uma importância política sem precedente, com a coroação do galês Henrique VII em 1485 como Rei da Inglaterra. Era o primeiro rei da problemática dinastia Tudor – e os reis Tudor, por serem de origem galesa, serão transformados em descendentes do Rei Arthur, de Brutus de Troia e, como não, do fundador de Roma.

Para complicar ainda mais a coisa, há a Reforma: Henrique VIII, filho de Henrique VII, rompe com a Igreja Católica na década de 1530, porque não aceita continuar casado com a esposa que não lhe dera um herdeiro varão. Na mesma época, o reformador John Bale (1495 – 1563), pioneiro em apresentar Roma como Babilônia e o Papa como o Anticristo, já jurava que os antigos britânicos tinham um cristianismo mais puro do que o dos romanos; que os britânicos sempre combateram Roma e que os Tudor são legítimos herdeiros do Rei Artur, tendo portanto a obrigação de combater Roma, sob pena de serem punidos por Deus.

Para os fanáticos protestantes do período, combater Roma poderia significar algo relativamente simples como purgar a Igreja Anglicana de coisas consideradas papistas. (Tanto que centenas de puritanos, frustrados com o governo da Rainha Elisabete, iriam embora para América por acreditarem que Deus iria destruir a Inglaterra por causa disso. A destruição do papado, acompanhada pelos maiores cataclismos, estava prevista para 1650.) Mas nessa época de loucura generalizada, nem todos os loucos eram de um tipo pio. E o louco que nos interessa é um louco ocultista chamado John Dee (1527 – 1609).

Mais um império mundial

Já vimos em textos anteriores que, nos séculos XVII, rondava em meios influenciados pela cabala a ideia de que um novo império mundial estava na iminência de surgir, junto com uma nova religião ecumênica e o Milênio. Na maioria das versões, o novo imperador liberta Jerusalém dos turcos e governa o mundo de lá. No seiscentos, destaquei Cristina da Suécia e Antonio Vieira como adeptos de La Peyrère, que a seu turno repetia o quinhentista Postel. No esquema destes últimos, os franceses são o povo eleito, e um rei francês iria libertar Jerusalém dos turcos, instalando lá os judeus. Para Antonio Vieira, o povo destinado ao Quinto Império do mundo era o português, liderado por D. João IV, que cumpre as profecias do Bandarra e ressuscitará para levar Portugal à glória. Ora, em relação à França e Portugal, a Inglaterra tinha a vantagem de ter no trono uma descendente do próprio Enéas!

Na Inglaterra, John Dee, que chegou a conhecer Postel, foi o mentor do “Brytish Impire”, do Império Britânico. Ele era filho de galês e conselheiro da Rainha Elisabete desde quando esta ascendeu ao trono em 1558. Na verdade, aos 20 anos o jovem Dee já era admirado dentro e fora da Inglaterra por seus avançados conhecimentos matemáticos.

Sobre a consultoria, vale citar um artigo desclassificado da NSA: “Como consultor do governo, era excelente em matemática, criptografia, ciência natural, navegação, biblioteconomia e, acima de tudo, nas ciências que mais recompensavam naqueles dias: astrologia, alquimia e fenômenos psíquicos. Ele era, sozinho, uma Rand Corporation para o governo Tudor de Elisabete”. A Rand Corporation é uma organização privada de financiamento obscuro que subsidia a inteligência militar dos Estados Unidos com pesquisas científicas e sociais.

Não é possível exagerar a importância de John Dee para a coroa britânica. Por isso, o relativo silêncio da academia sobre ele é algo digno de nota. Por incrível que pareça, o âmbito no qual é mais fácil encontrar escritos e informações sobre Dee é o esoterismo. Assim, é relativamente fácil descobrir que John Dee conversava com “anjos” usando apetrechos como um espelho asteca, uma bola de cristal, tabuleiros estrelados (apetrechos expostos no Museu Britânico), mais o auxílio do médium Edward Kelley – e que a parceria durou até ambos obedecerem às ordens de um “anjo” de trocarem de esposas. Difícil é descobrir que essa figura excêntrica foi tão importante na política.

As grandes crenças de Dee conexas com o Império

Uma das poucas obras dedicadas à vida política e filosófica de John Dee é John Dee: The World of an Elizabethan Magus, de Peter French. Na obra, vemos que John Dee acreditava na mitologia britânica, de modo que a Rainha Elisabete descendia do fundador de Roma através o Rei Arthur.Vale destacar que a mitologia britânica já havia sido refutada pelo humanista italiano Polidoro Virgílio na primeira metade do século com a obra Anglica Historia. No entanto, além de acreditar na lenda, Dee a ampliava, colocando o Rei Arthur como líder de um Império Britânico colossal ao qual a Rainha Elisabete tinha direito.

Em algum momento entre 1578 e 1580, Dee entregou à rainha o documento Title Royall to… foreyn Regions [Direito real a… regiões estrangeiras] nas quais, por ser descendente de Arthur, Elisabete tinha direito à “Atlântida” (era como Dee chamada a América), Islândia, Groenlândia, bem como às ilhas fantasmas de Friseland e Estotiland (que eram mencionadas na Viagem dos Irmãos Zeno, uma obra medieval publicada na Renascença).

Da década de 1550 até a década de 1580, Dee foi a principal liderança das navegações inglesas. Isso se deve tanto a um fator ideológico quanto a um fator prático. O fator prático é que a Inglaterra, antes mesmo da Reforma protestante, passava por um espírito reformista erasmiano que visava a combater a influência da Idade Média na universidade e substituí-la por beletrismo. Com a adesão da Inglaterra ao protestantismo, essa tendência se aprofundou, e no breve reinado (1547 – 1553) de Eduardo VI (o herdeiro homem tão desejado por Henrique VIII), os puritanos invadiram as universidades e destruíram os escritos identificados com o “papismo”. Para piorar, a matemática era associada com o ocultismo. Assim, grosso modo, era como se as universidades inglesas só tratassem de belas letras e apenas o excêntrico mago John Dee fosse capacitado para tratar de coisas práticas como a navegação.

Quanto à razão ideológica, Dee acreditava que a Rainha Elisabete deveria liderar um Império Britânico, e que tal império deveria se dar pela supremacia naval acompanhada por uma grande atividade mercantil. Essa é a descrição do Império Britânico tal como ele entrou para a história, mas ela reflete sobretudo o século XIX. Na época de Dee, não exisitam nem colônias inglesas na América, mas ele achava que um tal Lorde Madoc, Príncipe de Gales do Norte, havia construído uma “colônia” perto da Flórida e por isso a Rainha Elisabete tinha direito à “Atlântida”.

Na época de Dee, a os ingleses inventaram sistema de chartered companies, tão aproveitado pelos holandeses, no qual o Estado dava a uma companhia comercial o monopólio das relações comerciais com uma região. (Já escrevi em maior detalhe sobre isto aqui.) Assim, os projetos navais mais imediatos de Dee incluíam as expedições da primeira chartered company inglesa pelo Ártico (buscava-se uma rota da Inglaterra para o Oriente através do Ártico), expedições para o Canadá (se Humphrey Gilbert não tivesse naufragado, Dee teria direito a terras no Canadá), ou a circunavegação de Drake (a segunda circunavegação da História, que se seguiu à de Fernão de Magalhães).

Navegações de tão grande escopos eram, por fim, necessárias porque a Rainha Elisabete estava predestinada a liderar um império mundial, sem comparação com todos os precedentes: o “Incomparable Brytish Impire”, no inglês da época.

Assim, pois, temos que o Império Britânico é a invenção de um feiticeiro celta que se comunicava com “anjos” um tanto esquisitos (pois recomendavam troca de casais…) e acreditava que a Rainha Elisabete restauraria e superaria o império mítico do Rei Artur.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , Twitter e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

A prisão de Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor por suas associações ao escândalo Epstein está repleta de aspectos peculiares, tanto num sentido simbólico quanto num sentido histórico. A prisão foi realizada no dia do 66º aniversário de Andrew, em 19 de fevereiro de 2026, 666 dias depois daquele estranho evento em Londres, em 24 de abril de 2024, no qual um cavalo branco ensanguentado se soltou e cavalgou pelas ruas da cidade. Coincidência? Quem sabe?

A acusação, especificamente, envolve inúmeros relatos e evidências, deduzidos a partir dos e-mails de Epstein e de depoimentos de testemunhas, de que Andrew teria participado, acompanhado e colaborado no abuso sexual de mulheres de diversas idades, inclusive meninas potencialmente pré-púberes, e na tortura, também, de crianças e adolescentes – tortura com conotação ou contornos sexuais. Definitivamente, um comportamento atroz e repulsivo.

Andrew, que não é mais príncipe, duque, conde ou barão, tendo perdido todos os seus títulos e os direitos a eles associados, não obstante segue sendo irmão do Rei Carlos III, atual soberano do Reino Unido.

Se estamos nos referindo a polêmicas envolvendo a família real britânica, porém, a figura de Carlos III nos remete rapidamente à estranha morte da princesa Diana, que por um tempo foi esposa do rei britânico quando ele ainda era o príncipe de Gales.

Diana foi princesa de Gales e esposa do atual Rei Carlos de 1981 até 1996, quando se divorciou dele. Nunca saberemos os motivos reais do divórcio, para além das explicações dadas publicamente, as quais passam, por exemplo, por traições do príncipe, bem como pressões constantes da família real sobre ela. Mas aí então há aqueles que insistem que parte das tensões de Diana com a família real envolve segredos muito mais profundos sobre os quais a princesa teria tido conhecimento, incluindo aí o envolvimento de membros da família real com pedofilia e abuso sexual.

Não temos como ter certeza sobre qualquer coisa desse tipo, mas a amizade de Jimmy Savile com membros da família real britânica é, certamente, desconcertante. Jimmy Savile, falecido em 2011, foi um DJ e personalidade midiática britânica que trabalhava na estatal BBC. Mas ele é mais conhecido como sendo um pervertido aberrante que teria abusado sexualmente de centenas de crianças ao longo de décadas. Muito convenientemente, a mídia britânica esperou o falecimento de Savile para expor os seus “podres”. Quase como se todos já soubessem de tudo…

Savile teria conhecido pessoalmente o rei Carlos, quando ele ainda era príncipe, nos anos 70 do século XX, em eventos de caridade. Mas ele rapidamente teria se tornado surpreendentemente íntimo da família real, atuando como conselheiro em inúmeros temas. Segundo Diana, Carlos à época via Savile quase como um guru, um mentor. Savile chegou a dizer, porém, que ele conhecia a família real britânica há ainda mais tempo, desde os anos 60; tendo sido introduzido nos negócios da família real pelo lorde Louis Mountbatten, ex-governador de Burma…e notório pedófilo com predileção por menininhos.

Savile, porém, não era apenas um “consumidor”, ele era também um “fornecedor”. Pelo menos é o que diz seu sobrinho, Guy Marsden, que afirma que Savile organizava festas orgiásticas nas quais o diferencial era a “oferta” de crianças – meninos e meninas – a membros da elite britânica. O sobrinho de Savile diz crer que a maioria das crianças vinha de orfanatos e abrigos. Isso situa Savile numa função semelhante – ainda que talvez de menor envergadura – a Jeffrey Epstein. Savile, aparentemente, não era tão próximo de Andrew quanto ele era do príncipe de Gales, mas o próprio Andrew, numa entrevista infame realizada em 2019, afirmou ter passado muito mais tempo com Savile do que com Epstein.

Retornando a Louis Mountbatten, o tio-avô do rei Carlos III, além de amigo de Jimmy Savile, recentemente alguns vazamentos de arquivos levaram ao conhecimento público o fato de que ele teria abusado de dezenas, ou mesmo centenas de meninos. Uma parcela dos abusos teria ocorrido na Irlanda do Norte, no lar de crianças de Kincora, em Belfast – local em que o orfanato, aparentemente, servia como “bufê” de crianças para membros da elite política e militar britânica, tudo operado pelo MI5. O orfanato foi fechado em 1980, 1 ano após o lorde Mountbatten ser justiçado pelo IRA.

Não há muitos outros escândalos envolvendo pedofilia em conexão com a família real britânica, mas nem por isso deixa de haver outros escândalos sexuais graves.

Se voltarmos ainda mais no tempo, para o final do século XIX, chegaremos à época dos famosos assassinatos de Whitechapel. Canonicamente, 5 mulheres foram assassinadas, com o mesmo modus operandi, por um homem que tornou-se notório no folclore macabro como “Jack o Estripador”. Ninguém nunca foi preso, nenhum culpado foi descoberto, e as teorias abundam.

Uma das mais notórias, é a teoria que conecta os assassinatos à figura do príncipe Alberto Vítor, Duque de Clarence. Alberto, cuja reputação já foi historicamente afetada pela revelação de que ele frequentava um bordel masculino na rua Cleveland, em Londres, passou a ser considerado, com o passar do tempo, o principal suspeito de ser o notório serial killer. O seu conhecimento de caça seria suficiente para dar conta da parte técnica das mortes. Ademais, recentemente ficou comprovado que ele padecia de sífilis e/ou gonorreia, doenças sexualmente transmissíveis que, se não tratadas, levam à insanidade.

As teorias, em cima dessa hipótese, se bifurcam. Há alguns que alegam que o próprio assassino era o príncipe, acometido de surtos de insanidade que o levavam a retaliar contra prostitutas, vistas talvez, enquanto classe, como responsáveis por seu sofrimento. Outros alegam que os assassinatos, na verdade, teriam sido cometidos a mando da família real com o objetivo de ocultar escândalos sexuais nos quais o príncipe Alberto teria estado envolvido, incluindo um possível casamento secreto com uma plebeia, realizado numa taverna e testemunhado por prostitutas.

Diferentemente dos casos mais recentes, a verdade sobre Jack o Estripador e suas possíveis conexões com a família real britânica dificilmente virão à luz, especialmente por todo o tempo que já passou.

Ainda assim, certamente há algo de podre fluindo nas profundezas do Reino Unido da Grã-Bretanha e Irlanda do Norte.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

On the island of Great Britain there are three countries: England, Scotland, and Wales. During the Roman Empire, Great Britain, called Britannia, was populated by Britons. Hence the island’s name. Why this division of countries? During the Middle Ages, barbarian tribes left present-day Denmark and Saxony to conquer Great Britain and expel the Britons, a Celtic people, from their lands. These were the Angles and the Saxons, who mixed with each other and gave rise to England, or the Land of the Angles. A portion of the expelled Britons went to a part of France that became known as Brittany, making the name Great Britain convenient for differentiating the large island from this new land of Britons. Another portion of Britons was trapped in the tiny country of Wales, the land from which the Christian King Arthur tried to resist and reconquer the land lost to the infidel barbarians.

Now, given the failure of the poor Celtic king, why did England decide to create, in the Elizabethan period, the British Empire? And not, say, an English Empire?

The answer lies in the mythology surrounding the founding of England. Still in the High Middle Ages, an anonymous work entitled Historia Brittonum claimed that the first British king had been a certain Brutus of Troy, who was a descendant of Aeneas, the mythical founder of Rome. In the 12th century, a Welsh cleric with great literary talent named Geoffrey of Monmouth acted as historian with the work Historia Regum Brittaniae, in which he describes even the night of love in which King Arthur was conceived. Now Arthur was a British king descended from Aeneas and Brutus, who named the island Britain in his own honor. Geoffrey also invented a number of Nordic conquests for Arthur.

At the dawn of modernity, British mythology, invented in the Middle Ages, gained unprecedented political importance with the coronation of the Welshman Henry VII in 1485 as King of England. He was the first king of the problematic Tudor dynasty – and the Tudor kings, being of Welsh origin, would be transformed into descendants of King Arthur, Brutus of Troy and, of course, the founder of Rome.

To complicate matters further, there was the Reformation: Henry VIII, son of Henry VII, broke with the Catholic Church in the 1530s because he refused to remain married to his wife, who had not given him a male heir. At the same time, the reformer John Bale (1495 – 1563), a pioneer in presenting Rome as Babylon and the Pope as the Antichrist, was already swearing that the ancient Britons had a purer Christianity than that of the Romans; that the British had always fought Rome and that the Tudors were the legitimate heirs of King Arthur, therefore having the obligation to fight Rome, under penalty of being punished by God.

For the fanatical Protestants of the period, fighting Rome could mean something relatively simple like purging the Anglican Church of things considered papist. (So much so that hundreds of Puritans, frustrated with the rule of Queen Elizabeth, would leave for America because they believed that God would destroy England because of it. The destruction of the papacy, accompanied by the greatest cataclysms, was predicted for 1650.) But in this time of widespread madness, not all madmen were of a pious kind. And the madman who interests us is an occultist madman named John Dee (1527 – 1609).

Another World Empire

We have seen in previous articles that, in the 17th century, the idea that a new world empire was about to emerge, along with a new ecumenical religion and the Millennium, circulated among circles influenced by Kabbalah. In most versions, the new emperor liberates Jerusalem from the Turks and rules the world from there. In the 17th century, I highlighted Christina of Sweden and Antonio Vieira as followers of La Peyrère, who in turn repeated the 16th-century Postel. In the latter’s scheme, the French are the chosen people, and a French king would liberate Jerusalem from the Turks, installing the Jews there. For Antonio Vieira, the people destined for the Fifth Empire of the world were the Portuguese, led by D. João IV, who fulfills Bandarra’s prophecies and will be resurrected to lead Portugal to glory. Now, in relation to France and Portugal, England had the advantage of having a descendant of Aeneas himself on the throne!

In England, John Dee, who came to know Postel, was the mentor of the “Brytish Impire.” He was the son of a Welshmen, and he was an advisor to Queen Elizabeth I since she ascended the throne in 1558. In fact, at the age of 20, the young Dee was already admired inside and outside England for his advanced mathematical knowledge.

Regarding the consultancy, it is worth citing a declassified NSA article: “As government consultant, he excelled in mathematics, cryptography, natural science, navigation, and library science, and above all in the really rewarding sciences of those days – astrology, alchemy, and psychic phenomena. He was, all by himself, a Rand Corporation for the Tudor government of Elizabeth.” Rand Corporation is a private organization with obscure funding that subsidizes United States military intelligence with scientific and social research.

It is impossible to overstate John Dee’s importance to the British crown. Therefore, the relative silence of academia about him is noteworthy. Surprisingly, the area in which it is easiest to find writings and information about Dee is esotericism. Thus, it is relatively easy to discover that John Dee conversed with “angels” using paraphernalia such as an Aztec mirror, a crystal ball, starry boards (paraphernalia on display at the British Museum), plus the assistance of the medium Edward Kelley – and that the partnership lasted until both obeyed the orders of an “angel” to exchange wives. What is difficult to discover is that this eccentric figure was so important in politics.

Dee’s great beliefs connected to the Empire

One of the few works dedicated to the political and philosophical life of John Dee is John Dee: The World of an Elizabethan Magus, by Peter French. In the work, we see that John Dee believed in British mythology, so that Queen Elizabeth descended from the founder of Rome through King Arthur. It is worth noting that British mythology had already been refuted by the Italian humanist Polydorus Virgil in the first half of the century with the work Anglica Historia. However, in addition to believing in the legend, Dee expanded it, placing King Arthur as the leader of a colossal British Empire to which Queen Elizabeth was entitled.

Sometime between 1578 and 1580, Dee delivered to the queen the document Title Royall to… foreyn Regions in which, as a descendant of Arthur, Elizabeth was entitled to “Atlantis” (as Dee called America), Iceland, Greenland, as well as the phantom islands of Friseland and Estotiland (which were mentioned in the Voyage of the Zeno Brothers, a medieval work published in the Renaissance).

From the 1550s to the 1580s, Dee was the leading mentor in English navigation. This was due to both ideological and practical factors. The practical factor was that England, even before the Protestant Reformation, was experiencing an Erasmian reformist spirit aimed at combating the influence of the Middle Ages in universities and replacing it with belles-lettres. With England’s conversion to Protestantism, this trend deepened, and during the brief reign (1547-1553) of Edward VI (the male heir so desired by Henry VIII), the Puritans invaded the universities and destroyed writings identified with “papism.” To make matters worse, mathematics was associated with occultism. Thus, broadly speaking, it was as if English universities only dealt with belles-lettres, and only the eccentric magician John Dee was qualified to deal with practical matters such as navigation.

Regarding the ideological rationale, Dee believed that Queen Elizabeth should lead a British Empire, and that such an empire should be based on naval supremacy accompanied by extensive mercantile activity. This is the description of the British Empire as it went down in history, but it primarily reflects the 19th century. In Dee’s time, there were no English colonies in America, but he believed that a certain Lord Madoc, Prince of Northwales, had built a “colony” near Florida and therefore Queen Elizabeth had a right to “Atlantis.”

In Dee’s time, England invented a system of chartered companies in which the state gave a trading company a monopoly on trade relations with a region. (I have already written about this in more detail here.) Thus, Dee’s most immediate naval projects included the expeditions of the first English chartered company through the Arctic (seeking a route from England to the East via the Arctic), expeditions to Canada (if Humphrey Gilbert had not been shipwrecked, Dee would have been entitled to land in Canada), or the circumnavigation of Drake (the second circumnavigation in history, following that of Ferdinand Magellan).

Voyages of such great scope were, ultimately, necessary because Queen Elizabeth was destined to lead a world empire, without comparison to all precedents: the “Incomparable Brytish Impire,” in the English of the time.

Thus, we have that the British Empire is the invention of a Celtic sorcerer who communicated with rather strange “angels” (since they recommended wife swapping…) and believed that Queen Elizabeth would restore and surpass the mythical empire of King Arthur.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Watching British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announce that Britain is joining U.S. military operations against Iran was like listening to a broadcast from the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1984.

Speaking from Downing Street with Union Jack flags behind his shoulders, Starmer affected a somber, reassuring tone, saying that Britain was permitting the United States to use British military bases for “defensive strikes” to prevent Iran from “firing missiles across the region, killing innocent civilians.”

The British leader’s ability for double-think is impressive. Even after making the announcement, he assured the public that Britain’s involvement is not “offensive”. This is while the U.S. uses British bases in England, Cyprus, and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to mount bombing raids on Iran, which have so far killed nearly 800 civilians in only a matter of days. Civilian deaths from Iranian strikes across the region – so far, fewer than 20 – are a tiny fraction of that figure.

For several weeks, the United States had been flying squadrons of fighter jets and refueling tankers to Britain on their way to the Middle East for what has now turned out to be a major war with Iran. Starmer previously maintained the double-think that Britain wasn’t going to let its bases be used by Trump for any eventual war. The British premier said that this reluctance was based on “lessons learnt” from the Iraq War in 2003 when his predecessor Tony Blair had backed the George W Bush administration in launching a disastrous decade-long conflict that resulted in over one million deaths, millions of displaced, and regionwide terrorism that continues to haunt multiple nations.

Britain has learnt nothing from history. Today, it is repeating the same reckless rush to war in the Middle East in the service of American imperialism. Only this time, a war with Iran could be on an even greater disastrous scale than in Iraq. And Starmer is projecting the risible fiction that Britain is not involved because, he claims, what it is doing is “defensive”. This is Orwell meets Alice in Wonderland.

Starmer, like the rest of the European leaders, is throwing fuel onto a potential conflagration in the Middle East. They are fueling Washington and Israel’s impunity to commit even more crimes by not calling out the aggressor. Instead, the British and the Europeans are pathetically appeasing the aggressor and blaming the victims, Iran.

No wonder Donald Trump has such contempt for these vassals because they have no backbone or independence. This week, Trump told British media that Starmer was an inferior ally, even after the prime minister did a U-turn in favor.

When the Americans and the Israelis started bombing Iran on February 28, it was in the midst of diplomatic negotiations between U.S. and Iranian delegates. Omani mediators were saying on February 27 that progress was being made on talks about Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. But the decision to bomb Iran was taken weeks ago by Trump and Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu. The talks were just a pretext to give time for cranking up the war machine, with Britain’s help, of course.

Just like the attacks last June on Iran during previous negotiations, Washington and Israel opted for unilateral military action. That is aggression, a blatant violation of international law. Trump and Netanyahu’s claims about Iran building a nuclear weapon and their taking defensive action are cynical lies. Are we to believe people who are carrying out genocide in Gaza?

On the first morning of the latest round of aggression, Iran’s religious leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, was killed in air strikes on his home in Tehran. Scores of other Iranian senior figures were also murdered in separate attacks. Trump boasted about “decapitation”.

That same morning, U.S. and Israeli air strikes hit an elementary school in Minab in southern Iran, killing 165 schoolgirls.

Yet none of the European leaders, including Starmer, condemned this mass murder and aggression. They saved their hypocritical words to censure Iran after it retaliated with its own strikes on U.S. interests across the Persian Gulf and on Israel. Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia have been hit with waves of Iranian drones and missiles.

Like Britain, the Gulf monarchies are not innocent bystanders. They have provided the U.S. war machine with crucial bases and logistics to mount the aggression on Iran.

Britain’s Starmer tries to feign innocence that his country and the Gulf states are somehow “not involved”. This is an insult to common intelligence.

Britain and the Gulf monarchs are up to their necks in complicity with the U.S. and Israeli aggression against Iran. They will reap the whirlwind for the crimes they have sown.

Trump and his administration have foolishly walked over the abyss, and they are dragging their vassals with them. Trump’s stupidity and lies are so outrageous that they beg questions about his sanity.

Iran has reluctantly gone to war out of self-defense. But it is clear that once committed, Iran is prepared for a long war. It has taken out much of the supply and logistical bases in the Gulf that the U.S. needs to maintain its armada of warships and aircraft. It is believed that when the U.S. and Israel are depleted of their million-dollar missiles and not very effective air-defense systems, the Iranians will move to the next phase of firing their more modern and more powerful anti-ship ballistic missiles.

Moreover, the impact on the global economy from shutting down the Persian Gulf is going to be even more consequential and devastating for the fragile American and European economies.

Iran warned the United States for years not to go to war. But the arrogant Americans and their allies did not listen. They were so full of their own propaganda, illusions, and ignorance of history.

That’s why Trump, Rubio, Netanyahu, Starmer, and other European politicians are speaking with such incomprehensible doublespeak and double-think, and why they are walking into catastrophe.

These arrogant people learn nothing from history, and they are doomed to repeat it. Tragically, and criminally, a lot of innocent people will suffer because of these psychopathic clowns and liars who slavishly serve a capitalist system driven by war.

Part of the problem, too, is that the Western media have for years indulged in the propaganda lies that afforded impunity to criminals in office who keep repeating their crimes.

However, the whole Western warmongering system is about to crash against a wall of objective reality. Orwellian deceit and distortion of history can postpone reality… until the absurdity and contradictions become unbearable.

Finian Cunningham is coauthor of Killing Democracy: Western Imperialism’s Legacy of Regime Change and Media Manipulation

Segue nostro Telegram.

Ancora una volta, l’orologio dell’apocalisse si avvicina alla mezzanotte.

Nuove rivelazioni del Servizio di intelligence estero russo, l’SVR, indicano un preoccupante approfondimento del coinvolgimento europeo nel conflitto ucraino. Secondo informazioni recentemente divulgate, Francia e Regno Unito stanno coordinando un piano congiunto per trasferire armi nucleari o dispositivi radiologici all’Ucraina.

Se confermata, tale iniziativa rappresenterebbe un cambiamento qualitativo nel conflitto, aumentando in modo significativo il rischio di uno scontro diretto tra potenze nucleari. Secondo l’SVR, il progetto comporterebbe l’invio di componenti tecnologici e materiali strategici che consentirebbero l’assemblaggio di queste armi sul territorio ucraino. La frammentazione delle spedizioni, con parti consegnate separatamente e assemblate localmente, mirerebbe a ridurre il costo politico dell’operazione per Londra e Parigi, creando spazio per una negabilità plausibile.

Formalmente, si potrebbe sostenere che le armi sono state sviluppate in modo indipendente da Kiev, anche se i componenti essenziali provengono dall’estero.

Tra le possibilità menzionate dalle autorità russe vi è il trasferimento di testate di standard francese utilizzate nei sistemi di lancio navali. Allo stesso tempo, ci sarebbe presumibilmente una guida tecnica per la produzione di dispositivi radiologici basati su componenti industriali britannici e francesi.

I rapporti indicano inoltre che il piano è stato inizialmente discusso con la partecipazione della Germania. Tuttavia, Berlino avrebbe deciso di non procedere, dato l’elevato potenziale destabilizzante della misura. Ciononostante, le autorità francesi e britanniche sembrano disposte ad andare avanti, assumendosi i rischi strategici derivanti da tale decisione.

La reazione di Mosca è stata immediata. I funzionari russi hanno descritto l’iniziativa come una provocazione estrema e si sono impegnati a rafforzare i meccanismi di monitoraggio dei flussi logistici e degli impianti industriali ucraini. Qualora vi fossero indicazioni concrete di trasferimento di materiali sensibili, è plausibile che gli attacchi contro le infrastrutture militari e i complessi dell’industria della difesa si intensificherebbero, con l’obiettivo di neutralizzare le capacità prima che diventino operative. Il contesto internazionale più ampio contribuisce al deterioramento della situazione. Il mancato rinnovo dei meccanismi bilaterali di controllo delle armi nucleari tra Stati Uniti e Russia ha indebolito l’architettura di sicurezza strategica costruita nel corso di decenni. Senza meccanismi solidi di limitazione e trasparenza, emergono opportunità per iniziative unilaterali e una dinamica di competizione ampliata. Anche se Washington non è formalmente associata al presunto piano franco-britannico, l’erosione dei regimi di controllo degli armamenti favorisce la percezione di permissività nel settore nucleare. Per Mosca, la potenziale introduzione di armi di distruzione di massa nel territorio ucraino supera i limiti considerati non negoziabili.

La dottrina nucleare russa ha subito recenti adeguamenti, prevedendo la possibilità di rispondere non solo agli attacchi diretti delle potenze nucleari, ma anche alle azioni congiunte che coinvolgono tali Stati e paesi terzi che fungono da intermediari. In questo contesto, qualsiasi cooperazione operativa che porti alla presenza di tali armi in Ucraina potrebbe essere interpretata dalla Russia come una minaccia esistenziale, legittimando così le risposte contro qualsiasi attore coinvolto.

Se il piano attribuito a Parigi e Londra andrà avanti, le conseguenze potrebbero estendersi ben oltre il teatro ucraino. La logica della deterrenza, quando applicata indirettamente e attraverso terzi, tende a generare pericolose ambiguità e complessi calcoli di rischio. In parole povere, non sarebbe sicuro per la Russia astenersi da una risposta estrema, poiché qualsiasi fiducia nella moderazione della parte avversaria è già stata esaurita.

Ancora una volta, i rischi di una guerra nucleare sono elevati, alimentati, come sempre, dall’irresponsabilità interventista occidentale. Gli europei devono comprendere che Mosca ha esercitato pazienza per un periodo prolungato e si è ripetutamente astenuta dall’applicare le proprie linee rosse per evitare un’escalation. Ad un certo punto, tale moderazione potrebbe scomparire. Il possibile arrivo di armi di distruzione di massa in Ucraina è considerato assolutamente non negoziabile, legittimando qualsiasi azione la Russia ritenga necessaria per impedire tale manovra.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Britain is taking an increasingly sinister role in fueling the NATO proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. It seems that as Uncle Sam is growing weary of the slaughter, the British butler is stepping in to take up the mantle.

A large part of that role is ramping up information warfare, or propaganda, which the British state has been a past master of over the centuries. Britain’s military is in such sad disrepair these days that it has to rely on other devices.

In our editorial last week, we looked at how Britain recently tried to poison delicate diplomatic efforts for finding a settlement to the conflict by launching far-fetched claims that Russia had assassinated the late opposition figure Alexei Navalny by injecting him with a lethal South American frog toxin. That psyops bid coincided with the second anniversary of Navalny’s death. A telltale sign is how those fleeting headlines have now vanished into oblivion.

This week, the BBC, the state-owned broadcaster, fired another salvo of propaganda, this time from an interview with Ukraine’s nominal president, Vladimir Zelensky. The interview was timed to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the eruption of hostilities in Ukraine with Russia.

“Zelensky tells BBC Putin has started WW3 and must be stopped,” was the headline.

This was not a sit-down interlocution with some low-level journalist. It was conducted by Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s International Editor.

Zelensky was permitted to spout his slander without any pushback or questioning, which can only mean that the BBC was deliberately serving as a platform to amplify provocative messaging.

The Ukrainian leader, whose presidential mandate expired nearly two years ago and who continues to stay in power solely by martial decree (that is, dictatorship), asserted the usual NATO propaganda narrative that Ukraine is defending the whole of Europe from Russian aggression.

“Putin has already started it [World War Three]… the question is how to stop Russia because Russia wants to impose on the world a different way of life.”

At a later point in the interview, Zelensky urged the United States “to stop the Russians.”

The BBC described Zelensky as a “resilient” wartime leader carrying the burden of his nation. At no point was the former comedian-actor asked about the mounting evidence of embezzlement of Western public money among his ruling circle.

At no point did the BBC question how Ukraine was infiltrated by the CIA, MI6, and other NATO intelligence to install a NeoNazi regime in 2014 to act as a spearhead against Russia that led to the eruption of hostilities in February 2022.

Instead, the British broadcaster indulged in dignifying futile war rhetoric. Zelensky said he believed that Ukraine would win against Russia eventually and that it would reclaim all its territory back to the 1991 borders, implying even the return of Crimea.

This is tantamount to the British undermining ongoing diplomatic talks convened by the Trump administration. Russia is adamant that a peaceful settlement must involve the recognition of Crimea, Donbass, Kherson, and Zaporozhye as historic Russian territories.

In effect, the British are keeping the conflict going by portraying Russia as an evil aggressor with no just cause, and emboldening the Kiev regime to continue the reckless slaughter.

This is deja vu of the inimical intervention by then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in April 2022, when an early peace deal to end the conflict was scuppered by Johnson cajoling the Kiev regime to keep fighting. A weeks-long conflict became a four-year war with millions of casualties.

London’s repeated dangling of the proposal to send troops to Ukraine as part of a “coalition of the willing” is another ploy to sabotage a negotiated peace deal.

Another sinister development was the claim this week by Russian foreign intelligence that Britain and France were endeavoring to covertly ship components of nuclear weapons to Ukraine. Russian lawmakers are formally urging British, French, and German parliamentarians to investigate the grave claims. If the Kiev regime gets its hands on such weapons, then the implications are potentially catastrophic. We have already seen how this regime is prepared to bomb oil infrastructure serving Hungary and Slovakia, and shell Europe’s largest civilian nuclear power plant at Zaporozhye in desperate acts of terroristic blackmail.

While the Americans under Trump seem to realize that the proxy war in Ukraine is a dead-end, not so the British and other European warmongering, Russophobic elites. They need the war to continue because they have invested so much political capital in “justifying” the proxy war that to admit defeat now would be politically disastrous.

The British state is already facing deep inherent crises from its moribund economy and the fallout from the Epstein pedophile scandal, which has shaken the British establishment to its core. The arrest of a senior British royal and a former government minister over their alleged crimes with Epstein’s network is something that the BBC would rather play down, especially as the BBC is itself implicated in the pedophile network through former presenter and royal fixer, Jimmy Savile, as our columnist Raphael Machado noted in an article this week.

The BBC’s interview with the corrupt puppet president Zelensky this week was shameless war propaganda. A case could be made that the state broadcaster is criminally inciting aggression. If the NATO proxy conflict in Ukraine is not settled, there is a looming danger of it spiralling into a nuclear Third World War.

No wonder the Western news media and the BBC in particular are held in such contempt by the public in recent years. The “Beeb’s” advertising slogan is “the world’s most trusted news source.” That needs updating… to the “most busted” news source.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The imprisonment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for his associations with the Epstein scandal is replete with peculiar aspects, both in a symbolic sense and in a historical sense. The arrest was carried out on the day of Andrew’s 66th birthday, February 19, 2026, 666 days after that strange event in London, on April 24, 2024, in which a bloodied white horse broke free and rode through the city streets. Coincidence? Who knows?

The accusation, specifically, involves numerous reports and evidence, deduced from Epstein’s emails and witness testimonies, that Andrew allegedly participated in, accompanied, and collaborated in the sexual abuse of women of various ages, including potentially prepubescent girls, and in the torture, also, of children and adolescents — torture with a sexual connotation or overtones. Definitely atrocious and repulsive behavior.

Andrew, who is no longer a prince, duke, earl, or baron, having lost all his titles and the rights associated with them, nevertheless remains the brother of King Charles III, the current sovereign of the United Kingdom.

If we are referring to controversies involving the British royal family, however, the figure of Charles III quickly brings us to the strange death of Princess Diana, who was once the wife of the British king when he was still the Prince of Wales.

Diana was Princess of Wales and wife of the current King Charles from 1981 until 1996, when she divorced him. We will never know the real reasons for the divorce, beyond the publicly given explanations, which include, for example, the prince’s infidelities, as well as constant pressure from the royal family on her. But then there are those who insist that part of Diana’s tensions with the royal family involved much deeper secrets that the princess allegedly became aware of, including the involvement of royal family members with pedophilia and sexual abuse.

We cannot be certain about anything of that sort, but Jimmy Savile’s friendship with members of the British royal family is certainly disconcerting. Jimmy Savile, who died in 2011, was a British DJ and media personality who worked for the state-owned BBC. But he is better known as an aberrant pervert who allegedly sexually abused hundreds of children over decades. Very conveniently, the British media waited for Savile’s death to expose his “dirty secrets.” Almost as if everyone already knew everything…

Savile allegedly met King Charles personally, when he was still a prince, in the 1970s, at charity events. But he quickly became surprisingly intimate with the royal family, acting as an advisor on numerous topics. According to Diana, Charles at the time saw Savile almost as a guru, a mentor. Savile even said, however, that he had known the British royal family for even longer, since the 1960s; having been introduced to the royal family’s affairs by Lord Louis Mountbatten, former Governor of Burma… and a notorious pedophile with a predilection for little boys.

Savile, however, was not just a “consumer,” he was also a “supplier.” At least, that’s what his nephew, Guy Marsden, says, claiming that Savile organized orgiastic parties where the unique feature was the “offer” of children — boys and girls — to members of the British elite. Savile’s nephew says he believes most of the children came from orphanages and shelters. This places Savile in a role similar to — albeit perhaps on a smaller scale — Jeffrey Epstein. Savile, apparently, was not as close to Andrew as he was to the Prince of Wales, but Andrew himself, in an infamous 2019 interview, stated that he spent much more time with Savile than with Epstein.

Returning to Louis Mountbatten, the great-uncle of King Charles III, besides being a friend of Jimmy Savile, recent leaks of files have brought to public knowledge the fact that he allegedly abused dozens, or even hundreds, of boys. Some of the abuse allegedly occurred in Northern Ireland, at the Kincora boys’ home in Belfast — a location where the orphanage apparently served as a “buffer” of children for members of the British political and military elite, all operated by MI5. The orphanage was closed in 1980, one year after Lord Mountbatten was assassinated by the IRA.

There aren’t many other scandals involving pedophilia in connection with the British royal family, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other serious sexual scandals.

If we go even further back in time, to the end of the 19th century, we arrive at the era of the famous Whitechapel murders. Canonically, five women were murdered, with the same modus operandi, by a man who became notorious in macabre folklore as “Jack the Ripper.” No one was ever arrested, no culprit was discovered, and theories abound.

One of the most notorious is the theory connecting the murders to the figure of Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence. Albert, whose reputation was historically affected by the revelation that he frequented a male brothel on Cleveland Street, London, came to be considered, over time, the prime suspect for being the notorious serial killer. His knowledge of hunting would have been sufficient to account for the technical aspect of the deaths. Furthermore, it has recently been proven that he suffered from syphilis and/or gonorrhea, sexually transmitted diseases which, if untreated, lead to insanity.

Theories based on this hypothesis then diverge. There are some who claim that the killer himself was the prince, afflicted with bouts of insanity that led him to retaliate against prostitutes, seen perhaps, as a class, as responsible for his suffering. Others claim that the murders were actually committed at the behest of the royal family in order to cover up sexual scandals in which Prince Albert had been involved, including a possible secret marriage to a commoner, held in a tavern and witnessed by prostitutes.

Unlike more recent cases, the truth about Jack the Ripper and his possible connections to the British royal family is unlikely to come to light, especially given all the time that has passed.

Even so, there is certainly something rotten flowing in the depths of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , Twitter e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

Novamente, o Relógio do Apocalipse se aproxima da meia-noite.

Novas revelações feitas pelo Serviço de Inteligência Externa da Rússia, o SVR, indicam um preocupante aprofundamento do envolvimento europeu no conflito ucraniano. De acordo com informações divulgadas recentemente, França e Reino Unido estariam articulando um plano conjunto para transferir armamentos nucleares ou dispositivos radiológicos para a Ucrânia. Caso confirmada, tal iniciativa representaria uma mudança qualitativa no conflito, elevando o risco de confronto direto entre potências nucleares.

Segundo o SVR, o projeto envolveria o envio de componentes tecnológicos e materiais estratégicos que permitiriam a montagem dessas armas em território ucraniano. A fragmentação do transporte, com peças separadas e posterior montagem local, teria como objetivo reduzir o custo político da operação para Londres e Paris, criando margem para negar participação direta. Formalmente, poderia ser alegado que o desenvolvimento teria ocorrido de maneira autônoma por Kiev, embora os insumos fundamentais viessem do exterior.

Entre as hipóteses mencionadas pelas autoridades russas estaria inclusive a transferência de ogivas de padrão francês utilizadas em vetores navais. Paralelamente, haveria instruções técnicas para a produção de dispositivos radiológicos com base em componentes industriais britânicos e franceses.

Relatórios indicam ainda que o plano teria sido inicialmente discutido com a participação da Alemanha. No entanto, Berlim teria optado por não prosseguir diante do potencial altamente desestabilizador da medida. Mesmo assim, franceses e britânicos demonstrariam disposição para avançar, assumindo os riscos estratégicos decorrentes dessa decisão.

A reação em Moscou foi imediata. Autoridades russas classificaram a iniciativa como provocação extrema e prometeram reforçar mecanismos de monitoramento sobre fluxos logísticos e instalações industriais ucranianas. É plausível que, diante de qualquer indício concreto de transferência de materiais sensíveis, haja intensificação de ataques contra infraestruturas militares e complexos do setor de defesa, com o objetivo de neutralizar capacidades antes que atinjam estágio operacional.

O contexto internacional contribui para o agravamento do cenário. A ausência de renovação de instrumentos bilaterais de controle nuclear entre Estados Unidos e Rússia fragilizou a arquitetura de segurança estratégica construída ao longo de décadas. Sem mecanismos robustos de limitação e transparência, abre-se espaço para iniciativas unilaterais e para uma dinâmica de competição ampliada. Ainda que Washington não esteja formalmente associado ao suposto plano franco-britânico, o enfraquecimento dos regimes de controle alimenta percepções de permissividade no campo nuclear.

Para Moscou, a eventual introdução de armamentos de destruição em massa em território ucraniano ultrapassa linhas consideradas inegociáveis. A doutrina nuclear russa passou por ajustes recentes, prevendo a possibilidade de resposta não apenas a ataques diretos de potências nucleares, mas também a ações conjuntas envolvendo Estados dotados desse tipo de arsenal e países terceiros atuando como intermediários. Nesse enquadramento, qualquer cooperação operacional que resulte na presença de tais armas na Ucrânia poderia ser interpretada como ameaça existencial pela Rússia – legitimando respostas contra qualquer dos atores envolvidos.

Caso o plano atribuído a Paris e Londres avance, as consequências poderão transcender o teatro ucraniano. A lógica de dissuasão, quando aplicada de forma indireta e por meio de terceiros, tende a gerar ambiguidades perigosas e cálculos de risco complexos. Simplesmente, não seria seguro para a Rússia se privar de uma resposta extrema, já que qualquer confiança na moderação do lado inimigo já foi esgotada.

Mais uma vez, os riscos de guerra nuclear estão elevados – e tudo isso em razão da irresponsabilidade intervencionista ocidental. É importante que os europeus entendam que Moscou já foi paciente por tempo demais e que constantemente a Rússia tem ignorado suas próprias linhas vermelhas apenas para evitar escaladas. Em algum momento essa paciência pode simplesmente desaparecer – e a possível chegada de armas de destruição em massa na Ucrânia é algo absolutamente inegociável, legitimando qualquer tipo de ação necessário para impedir tal manobra.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Once again, the Doomsday Clock moves closer to midnight.

New revelations made by Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, the SVR, indicate a disturbing deepening of European involvement in the Ukrainian conflict. According to recently released information, France and the United Kingdom are coordinating a joint plan to transfer nuclear weapons or radiological devices to Ukraine. If confirmed, such an initiative would represent a qualitative shift in the conflict, significantly increasing the risk of direct confrontation between nuclear powers.

According to the SVR, the project would involve sending technological components and strategic materials that would enable the assembly of these weapons on Ukrainian territory. The fragmentation of shipments, with parts delivered separately and assembled locally, would aim to reduce the political cost of the operation for London and Paris, creating room for plausible deniability. Formally, it could be claimed that the weapons were developed independently by Kiev, although the essential inputs would originate abroad.

Among the possibilities mentioned by Russian authorities is the transfer of French-standard warheads used in naval delivery systems. At the same time, there would allegedly be technical guidance for the production of radiological devices based on British and French industrial components.

Reports further indicate that the plan was initially discussed with the participation of Germany. However, Berlin reportedly chose not to proceed, given the highly destabilizing potential of the measure. Even so, French and British authorities appear willing to move forward, assuming the strategic risks arising from such a decision.

The reaction in Moscow was immediate. Russian officials described the initiative as an extreme provocation and pledged to strengthen monitoring mechanisms over logistical flows and Ukrainian industrial facilities. Should there be any concrete indication of sensitive materials being transferred, it is plausible that attacks against military infrastructure and defense industry complexes would intensify, with the objective of neutralizing capabilities before they become operational.

The broader international context contributes to the deterioration of the situation. The failure to renew bilateral nuclear arms control mechanisms between the United States and Russia has weakened the strategic security architecture built over decades. Without robust mechanisms for limitation and transparency, opportunity emerges for unilateral initiatives and an expanded dynamic of competition. Even if Washington is not formally associated with the alleged Franco-British plan, the erosion of arms control regimes fosters perceptions of permissiveness in the nuclear domain.

For Moscow, the potential introduction of weapons of mass destruction into Ukrainian territory crosses lines regarded as non-negotiable. Russia’s nuclear doctrine has undergone recent adjustments, providing for the possibility of responding not only to direct attacks by nuclear powers but also to joint actions involving such states and third countries acting as intermediaries. Under this framework, any operational cooperation resulting in the presence of such weapons in Ukraine could be interpreted by Russia as an existential threat – thereby legitimizing responses against any of the actors involved.

If the plan attributed to Paris and London advances, the consequences may extend far beyond the Ukrainian theater. The logic of deterrence, when applied indirectly and through third parties, tends to generate dangerous ambiguities and complex risk calculations. Simply put, it would not be safe for Russia to refrain from an extreme response, as any trust in the moderation of the opposing side has already been exhausted.

Once again, the risks of nuclear war are elevated – driven, as always, by Western interventionist irresponsibility. Europeans must understand that Moscow has exercised patience for a prolonged period and has repeatedly refrained from enforcing its own red lines in order to avoid escalation. At some point, that restraint may disappear. The possible arrival of weapons of mass destruction in Ukraine is considered absolutely non-negotiable, legitimizing whatever actions Russia deems necessary to prevent such a maneuver.

By Fraser MYERS

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

If  Reform UK can be said to have a spiritual home, then Essex, one of the “home counties” bordering Greater London, is surely it.

Essex elected two Reform MPs in the 2024 general election and gained a defecting Tory MP earlier this year. One of the two elected MPs was party leader Nigel Farage, arguably Britain’s most recognizable politician after the prime minister, in the seaside seat of Clacton. The other was an entirely unknown and unvetted “paper candidate,” who had agreed to put his name on the ballot in his local constituency of Basildon, but was not expected to do any campaigning, let alone actually win the seat. Farage’s party has been topping national opinion polls for just over a year now, but Essex was well ahead of the curve in its hunger for Reform.

“Essex Man” conjures up all kinds of associations in the British imagination, most of them not very flattering. He is from the white working class or lower-middle class, holding all the wrong opinions, expressing them in the wrong accents.

But while there are some very poor parts of Essex—the village of Jaywick, in Farage’s Clacton constituency, is England’s most deprived area—what makes it unusual is that the wealthier areas are Reform-curious, too. The county is full of working-class men and women “done good,” often with family roots in the East End of London. The stereotype has it that they like to splash their cash on big houses with gaudy furnishings, brash designer clothing, and more cosmetic surgery, beauty treatments, and “Turkey teeth” than a human should be able to survive. Think Mar-a-Lago meets Downton Abbey, and you’ll understand why Essex feels so culturally anomalous, and why its people generate so much pearl-clutching and loathing among Britain’s liberal establishment.

The wealthy of Essex are the children and grandchildren of the Thatcher Revolution. Her “big bang” deregulation of financial services opened up the once stuffy old boys’ club of the City of London to a new breed of financier: a class of men who would once have worked on market stalls found their skill set and sales patter ideally suited to trading stocks, shares, and commodities. Even in 2026, the London Metals Exchange, which handles the world’s largest market in metals futures, still operates with men shouting orders and prices down landline phones, almost invariably in an Essex or cockney accent. Suddenly, a detached house in a semi-rural neighborhood was something affordable to this cohort of working-class Londoners, and invariably they’d look to Essex.

But there were push factors as well as pulls that led vast numbers of East Enders to move to Essex. White flight has played a major role. Already by 2001, long before Britain had anything resembling the mass migration we see today, the East London borough of Newham had become majority-minority. Newham was soon joined by nearby boroughs like Tower Hamlets. Those who could afford a place in the Essex countryside or in leafier towns like Epping moved there. Those who couldn’t often moved to the “new towns” constructed after the war, like Basildon or Harlow.

But if Essex Man left London to escape rapid demographic change, then that is no longer an option. Mass immigration is changing Britain well beyond the major cities. Illegal migration is a particular flashpoint. Last year, nationwide protests against asylum hotels were sparked in Essex after a migrant who had been living in Epping’s Bell Hotel for just six days sexually assaulted a teenager and an adult woman who came to help her. Although it is undoubtedly true that far-right elements sought to exploit the demonstrations, the majority of protesters were concerned locals, mainly women. It was the birth of the Pink Ladies’ movement, where mums and grannies wore pink, fearful for their own and their daughters’ safety, organized protests, meetings, and WhatsApp groups across the country.

The contrast between the Pink Ladies and the kind of activism their neighbors get up to in the other home counties could hardly be more stark. Whereas these Essex women are battling against illegal migration and rape gangs, every quaint town square in Surrey now plays host to yummy mummies and housewives sounding off on the cultural elites’ favored issue du jour, from urging a reversal of Brexit to supporting Palestine Action. In the past decade or so, both counties would have reliably voted Conservative, but while the old money has defected to the centrist, socially progressive Liberal Democrats or to the Green Party, Essex men and women are turning rightward to Reform.

So where did it go wrong for the Conservatives? The terms “Essex Man” and “Basildon Man” came out of the 1980s and ’90s, when political scientists were struggling to get to grips with why so many working-class voters were refusing to align with what was deemed to be their class interest. Those who moved up the class ranks, who made money in the City, were expected to defect to the Conservatives, as befitting their new social status and tax bracket. But why did the less wealthy Essex men and women prefer Maggie Thatcher’s red-in-tooth-and-claw capitalism to the socialism of the Labour Party that their parents and grandparents embraced?

The key factor that always eluded the Labour Party of that era was aspiration. They wanted to climb up the social ladder, but on the strength of their own grit, not with the help of state handouts. These were people who had already shown initiative by moving out of London in the first place. Rightly or wrongly, they believed Essex’s postwar “new towns” to be the future. They had “got on their bikes” in search of opportunities, long before the Thatcherite minister Norman Tebbit notoriously urged the masses of unemployed Britons to do the same. Thatcher tapped into this aspiration and individualism with her right-to-buy scheme, which allowed tenants of council houses to purchase the property they lived in at a discounted rate, putting millions of working-class people on the housing ladder. The policy was pioneered in Romford, a commuter town in—you guessed it—Essex, which now hosts a Reform MP, Andrew Rosindell, who defected from the Conservatives last month.

Even now, Labour and its outriders greet the loss of these voters with a mixture of bafflement and scorn. In the 1980s, it was said these “thugs” had been brainwashed by the tabloid newspapers into embracing the hated Tories. In modern times, the culprits are social media and so-called disinformation. Or it’s just that these people are “racist” or “far right.” Some on the left now refer to the white working class as “gammon”—a form of cured pork—likening the pink meat to the flushed faces of men and women who are said to be irrationally angry at modern life in Britain.

Thanks to this hate-hate relationship between Essex Man and the left, nobody now expects Keir Starmer’s Labour to ever win him back. Instead, in 2026, the question on everyone’s lips is: Why has he now stopped voting Tory?

There has always been a tension between the Tory “wets”—more centrist, more socially liberal, oriented toward the posher and more privileged—and the right, Brexity, more Reform-aligned wing. But since David Cameron took power in 2010, the wets have been wildly overrepresented. With the exception of Brexit, honoring the 2016 referendum to leave the EU, the policy program of recent Conservative administrations has been a centrist’s wet dream. After all, it was the Conservatives who signed Britain’s business-crushing Net Zero targets into law, let welfare spending soar to uncontrollable heights, raised taxes to the highest level since the Second World War, effectively decriminalized minor offences like shoplifting, and even came within an inch of allowing transgender self-identification. Above all, it was they who unleashed the largest influx of migration the UK has ever seen. In the so-called “Boriswave” (named after then–Prime Minister Boris Johnson), at least 2.6 million people arrived in Britain legally between 2020 and 2023—a staggering betrayal of the party’s promises to the electorate to bring migration down.

In office, the Tories were far more interested in chasing the approval of the chattering classes than in keeping the working- and lower-middle-class voters who are now defecting in droves to Reform. Infamously, one liberal Tory grandee reacted to the Conservatives’ loss of Essex’s Clacton to UKIP, the precursor party to Reform, not with alarm but with relief. The Tories should “turn their backs” on such ghastly places, he wrote in the Times. This was “tracksuit-and-trainers Britain, tattoo-parlour Britain, all-our-yesterdays Britain.”

Essex Man didn’t abandon the Tories—the Tories abandoned him. And now, as the Reform revolution spreads well beyond Essex, they and the Labour government are reaping the whirlwind.

Original article:  www.theamericanconservative.com