The British Empire Is A Global War Machine Harley Schlanger’s argument is straightforward but uncomfortable: the British Empire never ended. It adapted.

 https://x.com/apocalypseos/status/2007244076152992230

pocalypsis pocalypseos   🅉

@apocalypseos

Perfidious Albion Episode II: The British Empire Is A Global War Machine Harley Schlanger’s argument is straightforward but uncomfortable: the British Empire never ended. It adapted. What is sold today as a “rules-based international order” is the continuation of imperial power through finance, intelligence, and perpetual war. As Schlanger explains, this system reveals itself wherever conflict never seems to end: “You look at the hotspots in the world and you see the British thumbprint.” The British system functions as a global war machine. It survives by preventing peace, because peace produces sovereign nations—and sovereign nations resist looting. Its method is division: each against all. Artificial borders, sectarian conflict, regime change, and financial dependency are not failures. They are policy. As Schlanger puts it, “The goal was to have essentially an irritant for all parties—each against all.” Since its overt power declined, Britain has relied heavily on the United States—not as a victim, but as a partner with its own imperial and financial factions. British intelligence, think tanks, and media networks shape threat perceptions and strategic narratives, while American military power enforces them. Schlanger is blunt about the outcome of this relationship: “And the Americans go along with it.” This same imperial logic, he argues, explains the creation of Israel. The Zionist project was not primarily about Jewish safety. It was a political decision to create an artificial state—a permanent military and intelligence outpost—in a critical region as the Ottoman Empire collapsed. In Schlanger’s words: “There was a political decision to create an artificial entity, just as Lebanon and Iraq were carved up.” And the location was chosen deliberately: “This area that was chosen for a Jewish state was chosen to establish a military and intelligence outpost of the British Empire, in the midst of warring tribes and a collapsing Ottoman Empire.” The purpose of this design was confrontation, not coexistence. “The decision to have an Israeli state—a Zionist state—was deliberate, to provoke confrontation.” That strategy was formalized in Vladimir Jabotinsky’s doctrine of the Iron Wall, which rejected accommodation from the outset: “Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall was explicit: only through force would the Arabs accept a Jewish state, and therefore it was necessary to have an iron wall to defend the interests of the Jewish population.” The consequence of this design is tragic and ironic. A state created in the name of Jewish safety requires permanent war to survive. As Schlanger concludes: “The least safe place to be a Jew in the world is Israel because of the policies of the Zionist regime.” He notes that this outcome was not unforeseen. British officials and Zionist leaders knew the land was already inhabited. As early as the 1890s, emissaries reported back: “The bride is beautiful, but she’s already married.” The myth of “a land without a people” was propaganda—necessary to justify dispossession. Schlanger argues that this pattern does not stop in the Middle East. It repeats globally. Ukraine is not about democracy; it is about weakening Russia. Africa is not about stability; it is about resource control. From the Sahel to Eastern Europe, the same methods, the same narratives, and the same intelligence fingerprints appear again and again. Beneath it all lies a financial–intelligence–crime nexus: offshore havens, arms trafficking, money laundering, blackmail, and media control. These are not scandals. They are structural features of the system. This is, at its core, an information war. As long as the public blames the wrong actors—America alone, ethnic groups, or vague “globalists”—the real architecture of power remains untouched. The alternative, Schlanger argues, is sovereignty: productive credit, development, and cooperation among nations. That is why BRICS, African independence movements, and peace with Russia are existential threats to this order. War is not a failure of this system. War is the system.

11:14 AM · Jan 3, 2026

·

1,171

Views

https://x.com/apocalypseos/status/2007244076152992230