Western Countries Need Enemies, But Whom?
Britain's surrender of Diego Garcia reveals a contradiction
Why is Britain yielding Chagos (Diego Garcia) when its military targets China?
Why did it cut military spending in the 2010s when it had Russia in its sights?
It does not compute, unless there is an input that we have missed
Today's enemies of the Anglo-American Establishment are old trading rivals
Now We The People have been enjoined as enemies in hybrid warfare
The state is safe & effective, climate neutral: The enemy then is humanity itself
Related:
Trump's Stars Align With Age Old Interests - Cabinet picks do little to quiet the drums of war (Nov 15, 2024)
Indigenous People Hijacked By Globalists - From Hawaii to Australia first nations will be expropriated (Aug 18, 2023)
UN & The Fake Limits To Growth - NWO and wars deceive you into compliance (Sep 24, 2024)
Trump Peacemaker Or Man Beyond Time - The pace of change has accelerated rapidly within weeks (May 15, 2025)
A Tale Of Two Charles': 1666 And Build Back Better - Strange parallels with the Great Fire and the City of London's rise (Jun 12, 2023)
Pirates, Privateers And Merchant Adventurers (Aug 15, 2023)
(2,500 words or about 12 moments of your company.)
May 23, 2025
We are faced with conflicting realities. Take Britain, whose government is one of the most fervent voices in confronting Russia. If you look at the recent military review, it cites China as an even greater threat.
And yet Britain's government is currently handing over a key military asset, the Chagos Islands, the largest of which is the U.S. base of Diego Garcia, to Mauritius, a country that is reportedly in hock to China.
The Telegraph blithely refers to "Britain’s enemies abroad including Russia, Iran and China."
Remember those three countries. We shall see how they have been targets for centuries.
The Telegraph newspaper inserted this barb while criticising Keir Starmer's decision to return the Chagos, saying the deal would put the military base at risk because of Mauritius’s diplomatic ties with Britain’s enemies abroad including Russia, Iran and China."
If you lack a historical perspective you can easily be convinced that Russia is an enemy and Putin is plotting, along with the bearded men in Iran and the sly chaps in China.
A grasp of history will show that these are key regions with which the City of London has competed for centuries.
The common thread is a fourth region: India, where the British East India Company, formed in the 1590s and chartered by Elizabeth I in 1600, established trading posts that became the jewel of the British empire.
Britain's priority was to stop other countries trading with India. To block Russia, it tried to use Persia as a buffer.
See Pirates, Privateers And Merchant Adventurers (Aug 15, 2023)
Paul Reuter, a banker and founder of the news agency, would be the first attempt in the 1870s. Lady Luck would arrive fashionably late, in a dripping black gush of oil.
A British-Australian, William D'Arcy would sign a concession on behalf of Britain to explore for oil in Persia in 1901, striking it in 1908, founding the Anglo-Persian Oil Company that would become BP.
Russia as competitor goes back more than 200 years to the Corn Laws of 1815 when Britain banned imports of Russian grain to protect the interests of landowners.
In the 1830s, the British Liberal campaigner Richard Cobden opposed the Corn Laws as a tax upon the people — but also an obstruction to industrialisation because inflated food costs diverted discretionary spending into mere survival. Cobden was appalled by anti-Russian propaganda. He coined the phrase Russo-phobia, and he fought it until his death in 1865.
Britain would wage wars against Russia in Crimea in the 1850s and Afghanistan in the 1870s, while "anarchists" repeatedly attempted to assassinate Russian tsars, culminating in the murder of Alexander II in 1881, and after the Bolshevik putsch, Nicholas II in 1918.
In the 1850s the U.S. and Russia were discussing a northern trade route across the Bering Strait. This is likely why Russia sold Alaska to the U.S. at a bargain basement price.
See UN & The Fake Limits To Growth - NWO and wars deceive you into compliance (Sep 24, 2024)
Thus it pre-dates Halford Mackinder (1861-1947), who coined the concept that Russia is the central state of the world due to its geographical position, as it controls the “pivot zone” or the Heartland. This became the British doctrine of geopolitics that it must divide Europe and Eurasia. Zbiginiew Brzezinski would revive Mackinder's theses in The Grand Chessboard.
Neither Mackinder nor Brzezinski was original. They were giving academic gloss to a brazen grab of land and sea.
As for China, it was also part of Britain's triangular trade with India. The fashion for Chinese goods like tea, silk, and porcelain created a trade deficit — the Chinese didn't want much from Britain.
To balance this the British East India Company grew opium in India and forced it upon China in return for silver.
As for the Russian and Chinese revolutions, look back to look forward: to the French revolution and the overthrow of the Bourbon monarchy in 1791 and 1848, and note the parallels not only between the Jacobins, the Bolsheviks, and Mao's Red Guard, but between the post-revolutionary states in these countries.
Royal intrigue
There is a twist to the story.
Paul Reuter, of the news agency, in 1872 gained a concession that controlled Persia.
As we've read, Britain wanted to secure Persia as a buffer against Russia, to protect its monopoly on India.
Although Reuter had taken British citizenship in 1871 he was married into the Berlin banking house of Magnus.
Britain’s Lord Curzon, the future Viceroy of India, called the Reuter Concession the greatest ever takeover of resources by a foreigner. Britain created a fuss and the concession was cancelled. Reuter had to compromise with control of Persia's central bank.
See Trump's Stars Align With Age Old Interests - Cabinet picks do little to quiet the drums of war (Nov 15, 2024)
One can conclude that Reuter was acting for banking or German interests but not British.
Reuter had been raised to Freiherr or baron by Ernest II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, whose brother Albert was consort to Queen Victoria.
When Queen Victoria's consort, Prince Albert, died, his brother Ernest published anonymous pamphlets critical of various members of the British royal family. Eventually he accepted Albert's second son, Prince Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh, as his heir-presumptive.
He may also have been close to Prince Albert Victor, Victoria's grandson and named after herself and Prince Albert. Here is where the story gets interesting.
Victoria wanted Albert Victor to marry his cousin Princess Alix of Hesse and Rhine. She turned him down. In 1894, she married Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, another of Albert Victor's cousins, becoming Alexandra Feodorovna, Empress of Russia (1872-1918).
The Russian monarchy would be taken out during WWI, along with the Ottoman, German and Austrian.
After Albert Victor's proposal to Alix fell through, Victoria suggested he marry Princess Margaret of Prussia.
Recall that Ernest II was a supporter of the unification of Germany, and had switched from the liberal to the Prussian camp. Germany would become a country in 1871 when the principalities united under Prussia.
Such a marriage would effectively have united Germany and Britain, although they were already led by the same family. Was this Ernest II's desire? Was it, moreover, Victoria's? Perhaps it was not the wish of her prime ministers: the lib-con imperialists Benjamin Disraeli (1868 and 1874-1880), and Robert Cecil (1885-86 and 1895-1902).
Disraeli would console Victoria by declaring her Empress of India through the Royal Titles Act of 1876.
Albert Victor's longings led him to Princess Hélène of Orléans, a daughter of Prince Philippe, Count of Paris. She offered to convert from Catholicism, Albert Victor offered to give up his succession to the British throne.
Helene's father refused. She travelled to Rome to plead with Pope Leo XIII but he also refused.
Next was Princess Victoria Mary of Teck, daughter of the Austro-Hungarian Graf von Hohenstein, and Victoria supported the candidate. The wedding was set for February 1892.
Just as Albert Victor was preparing, the "Russian flu" struck — the pandemic of 1889–1892.
He died at Sandringham aged 28. Like Victoria's consort Prince Albert, her grandson, named after him, is also said to have died of flu or typhus or something.
The Prince of Wales, future Edward VII, wrote to the Queen, "Gladly would I have given my life for his."
His brother Prince George wrote, "How deeply I did love him; & I remember with pain nearly every hard word & little quarrel I ever had with him & I long to ask his forgiveness, but, alas, it is too late now!"
George took Albert Victor's place in the line of succession, eventually succeeding to the throne as George V.
Mary would marry George, and become mother to Edward VIII, who also aligned Britain with Germany, supporting Hitler, and who was forced to abdicate. If you wrote such a novel, even the familial events would be dismissed as fantasy. Too much even for Mills and Boon.
But you must wonder if Albert Victor on the British throne would have more closely aligned Britain with a unified Germany. What was the content of Ernest II's pamphlets against the British royal family?
The British and German royal families were not only allies, they were one and the same. Hitler need never have happened, let alone two world wars. But placing Germany on a par with Britain would have threatened the City of London's control of trade routes.
It seems Britain was not only divided against Germany, but internally, too, and well before World War One.
Britain is credited with dividing countries and pitting one religion against another. But long before that the Anglo-Saxons were divided against themselves.
Inglorious revolution
How did the British Crown avoid assassinations and overthrows?
How did they escape the fate of their German, Austrian and Russian cousins and even the mighty Ottomans?
Looking back to look forward, we discover that they didn't. The English were the first to suffer revolutions and there was nothing glorious about them.
The first, you might argue, was the rise of the Tudors, hailing from Anglesey, who would overthrow the Catholic rule of England.
Anglesey peninsular off the west coast of Wales is on the trade winds which brought the Mediterranean sailors also to Ireland.
See Bob Quinn's book The Atlantean Irish: Ireland's Oriental and Maritime Heritage which revises history suggesting the Phoenician and North African heritage of these coasts.
The Tudors would institute the modern world's first police state, in which the majority of the population, born and thus identifying as Catholic, were converted by force.
The division of society would persist throughout the reign of Elizabeth I and James I and VI, ultimately fueling the civil war and the execution of Charles I in 1649.
In 1666 the Great Fire of London burned down much of the City of London which would be rebuillt as a modern financial district or "world trade centre."
See A Tale Of Two Charles': 1666 And Build Back Better - Strange parallels with the Great Fire and the City of London's rise (Jun 12, 2023)
This was followed by the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688.
How a revolution is glorious when it overthrew a king, James II and VII, is the finessing of British history — if it is taught at all.
Out-of-left-field arrived the Dutch William (reigned 1689-1702) and Mary (reigned 1689-94) as joint monarchs! The Netherlands had replaced Venice as Europe's centre of banking, as Venetians fled the Ottoman advance. The Ottoman Empire would declare war on Venice in 1714.
Within a few short years the Bank of England was established, in 1694. This, along with the British East India Company, by then almost 100 years old, were expected to finance the British state. The EIC was not contributing, beyond lining its own pockets, which led the government to try to transfer the EIC in the 1690s to new ownership.
Where were the profits of the EIC going? See earlier article on the research of EM Burlingame.
See Trump Peacemaker Or Man Beyond Time - The pace of change has accelerated rapidly within weeks (May 15, 2025)
Chagos chorar
As for the Chagos islands, they fit into an earlier phase of empire.
Those who read the bestseller Nathaniel's Nutmeg, by Giles Milton (1999) will grasp the battle for control of trade between the Portuguese, the Dutch, the French and the English from the 16th, century onwards.
Britain claimed the Chagos Archipelago from France in 1814 following the Napoleonic Wars.
I have no particular insight into why the British government — at this very moment when its own military reviews cite China as a military threat — would revert the Chagos Islands (and the military base of Diego Garcia) to a reputed ally of China.
But then who can explain why it cut spending on the British military so drastically in the 2010s just as it was gearing up to fight Russia.
It does not compute, unless there is an input that we have missed.
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it is not a sudden outbreak of goodhearted generosity, but that it aligns with a greater goal.
The globalists want the world in neat regions not because they envisage the "Ten horns of the Beast," the kings of Revelation but because consolidation aids the publicised plan, through the UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to return land to indigenous peoples.
This, likewise, is not motivated by goodhearted generosity. It makes it easier to expropriate land since indigenous peoples are not considered political nation states and thus have no access to international law. It’s a land grab.
Hidden hand
Thus it may be one small part of the centralised digital ledger, envisaged as the consolidation of all assets, land, mineral or animal, so that they can be tokenised as part of a new monetary system.
Survival International, and NGO, told Down to Earth that the 30 by 30 goal will displace around 300 million indigenous people from their native lands and forests in the name of “conservation.”
It is curious that so much of the land — if I am right that it has been targeted — is low lying, and sea facing. Lahainia in Hawai, the California coastline, and now the Chagos.
Justified by the mantra of rising sea levels and the need to clear people out of land that is at risk of multiple crises due to climate change, what the UN calls managed retreat.
Today's stated 'enemies' of the money power or consolidated wealth are simply its long-time trading rivals: Russia, Iran, China.
What's changed is that We The People have been enjoined as enemies, even though we never declared war on anybody.
It is there in the military doctrine of hybrid warfare, where the head of the British army declares the enemy is as much at home as abroad. Yet the same rational is at the centre of climate policy: "The real enemy then is humanity itself” (The First Global Revolution (Council of the Club of Rome, 1991).
It is there in the Covid response and the "safe and effective."
See Gurus Or Goons: Assessing The Theatre Of Davos (Moneycircus, Jan 2023)
We are to be expropriated for what looks like nothing more than greed; the desire of the richest to have more.
Instead of beneficence, a duty of care, noblesse oblige, religious injunction to do good, or simple gratitude for their luck — the centralisation of wealth through the era of central banking and oil fortunes turns on those less fortunate than themselves with more than disregard.
We must picture this, while we remain calm though not docile, analytical and strictly guided by observation. Applying accountability in our daily lives, not trusting in "the plan."
See Indigenous People Hijacked By Globalists - From Hawaii to Australia first nations will be expropriated (Aug 18, 2023)
If you disagree, I’m very happy to hear but present me with history, not your politics.