Discussion about this post

User's avatar
ChatterX's avatar

Only 22 countries have never been invaded by Britain:

statista.com/chart/3441/countries-never-invaded-by-britain/

***

The U.S. is just the British Empire's nepo baby.

Pax Britannia became Pax Americana after WW2. It is all part of globalism (Imperialism) that was carried out by the fascists of the 19th-21st Centuries.

And nothing really changed since Palmerston, Milner and Halford Mackinder (The Imperialist "Heartland Theory")..

***

British and US establishments are closely intertwined, they're basically one and the same

substack.com/@beeley/note/p-164625270

***

Simply speaking, Brits are the wicked brain (Intelligence services/spy networks - colonial legacy) and the slush fund, and the U.S. is the brawn of the Global (Imperialist) Oligarchy.

youtube.com/watch?v=KaooeJzsRU8

***

CFR in the US and Chatham House in the UK. They are one and the same entity.

MI6 is part of "Five eyes". UK is a founding member of NATO.

Britain exerts influence through partial ownership of the FED. City of London is the headquarter of the global banking cartel. Besides, City of London basically runs all the main offshore funds.

AND It still runs Israel through the Pilgrim Society, Privy Council, RIAA, etc.

Will R.'s avatar

This is a forceful and, in many respects, compelling intervention that situates contemporary tensions with Iran within a much longer history of Western intelligence activity. Its greatest strength lies in drawing a clear through-line from the 1953 overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh, a well-established joint operation involving MI6 and the CIA, to the present day. This context gives the broader argument real weight: it is difficult to dismiss claims of ongoing interference when there is such a clear precedent for it.

The piece is also effective in highlighting the structural nature of intelligence collaboration, particularly the long-standing relationship between British agencies and Mossad. By tracing these networks across decades, it builds a picture of continuity rather than isolated incidents, suggesting that what might appear as discrete operations are better understood as part of a sustained strategic alignment. Even where specific claims are harder to independently verify, the overall pattern it sketches is coherent and consistent with how intelligence alliances tend to operate.

Importantly, the article challenges the idea that Western states act primarily as neutral arbiters of security or stability. Instead, it reframes intelligence activity as a tool of geopolitical and economic power, often shielded from public scrutiny. That critique is not only legitimate but necessary, particularly given how rarely these institutions are subjected to meaningful democratic oversight.

At the same time, some sections would benefit from clearer distinctions between firmly evidenced claims and more interpretive conclusions. Personally, I think tightening that boundary make your claim harder to dismiss. As it stands, though, the piece succeeds in doing something valuable: forcing readers to reconsider comfortable narratives about Western foreign policy and to take seriously the possibility that much of what is presented as “defence” may in fact be projection of power. Brilliantly written and researched.

1 more comment...

No posts

Ready for more?