________
The British Ruling Elite As A Subject Of Cultural And International Terrorism
By Averyanov Andrey Vladimirovich and Shamarov Pavel Vyacheslavovich | Sott.net | April 20 2026
This article examines the ingrained greed and historical ruthlessness of the Anglo-Saxon elites toward other nations and peoples, and substantiates, explicates, and introduces into scholarly usage the new authorial concepts of "British cultural terrorism", "cultural decolonization", and "historical anti-Russianism".
It analyzes British involvement in numerous Ukrainian terrorist attacks and acts of sabotage on Russian territory outside the zone of the special military operation (SMO), as well as the specific features, criminal plans, and international unlawfulness of the British-Ukrainian terrorist alliance that has taken shape to date.
Britain's complicity in such unlawful Ukrainian activity on Russian territory is classified as international terrorism carried out through the sponsorship and organization of the killing of Russian citizens, as well as acts of sabotage and terrorist attacks against military and civilian infrastructure. Relevant practical recommendations and conclusions are formulated.
The process of strengthening Russia's sovereign statehood is perceived with irritation, apprehension and malice by the Anglo-Saxon establishment [69; 71; 74], which has historically found intolerable not only "the very fact of Russia's existence" [9], but also the emerging "new world order arising naturally" [7], in which our state is playing an increasingly significant role [3, para. 4-6]. In this regard, the collective West is prepared to use any means to slow down as much as possible, or even completely halt, positive domestic changes in Russia and international developments in the world "during the period of so-called geopolitical uncertainty", which, according to NATO experts, will last until 2035 [40].
As part of its latent anti-Russian toolkit, the West is expected to continue its customary use of the unpatriotic fifth column [50] and the Russian-speaking diaspora, both that which does not support the special military operation (hereinafter referred to as the SMO), and that which is concentrated mainly in the territory of the United Kingdom [68]. Such defectors have traditionally included national traitors [5; 12, p. 1], representatives of the non-systemic opposition, and domestic entrepreneurs who have violated federal legislation [42], as well as wealthy businessmen who reject the latest policies of the Russian state and its national leader [68]. All of them have left behind in the Russian Federation serious estate-based, corporate and family ties. The exploitation of these ties for anti-Russian purposes by the British ruling elite (which we understand as a corporate and class-based grouping of the United Kingdom's senior state administrators) not only runs counter to the national interests of our state, but may also impede the pursuit of those interests in the international arena.
The relatively high likelihood of this makes it legitimate to classify such harmful influence from abroad as a latent threat to the national security of our country under wartime conditions [1, para. 5(5)]. The prevention and neutralization of this pressing danger (in view of the geopolitical imperative for Russia to accomplish all the objectives of the SMO) requires urgent federal measures to neutralize pro-British views and concealed sympathies toward London within Russian society. In this regard, it should be particularly noted that West London has long been mockingly known across Europe as "Londongrad", because before the start of the SMO it was there that wealthy Russians were buying up property en masse "directly or under the cover of British front companies" [54, p. 196].
In this regard, we consider it essential to implement two key domestic imperatives. The first is the self-purification of the Russian people from unpatriotic individuals who still have bank accounts, relatives, property, and social and other foreign preferences in the United Kingdom. The second is the further strengthening of Russia's national sovereignty, since the key to our society's success lies in "its self-defense against external influence" of any negative kind [9].
It is precisely from this milieu that a serious hidden danger may arise — namely, from that part of the domestic elite and the social segment close to it [59] which still adheres to the views of Eurocentrism, a false ideological prejudice that presents Europe and its spiritual order as the center of world culture and civilization [28]. This same milieu remains habitually inclined to bow before and curry favor with the West, dreaming, no matter the cost — including through capitulation — of reconciling itself with the transatlanticists and being incorporated into their egocentric and mercenary society. In other words, it is precisely such unpatriotic and self-serving individuals who are convinced apologists of the West's destructive and spiritually barren ideology [2, para. 13-17; 9] and are secretly oriented toward Russia's strategic defeat in the SMO.
In our view, the urgency of containing and neutralizing this domestic threat is a matter of high national priority, since "Russia ... is not fighting the AFU, nor Ukraine, but .... virtually all NATO countries" [9]. At the same time, one of the key roles in the transatlantic community and in the current civilizational confrontation between the West and Russia has been, and continues to be, played by the United Kingdom [55] in its capacity as the United States' closest "henchman" [40]. Figuratively speaking, this small kingdom sometimes seeks on the international stage to "jump out of its skin", while ostentatiously displaying its national "individuality and exceptionalism"; yet whenever any tangible threat arises, it usually retreats quickly "to its island".
That is why, for a long time, Britain's foreign policy has been based on the ruling elite's cunningly effective exploitation not only of disinformation-driven Russophobic, anti-Russian and Russia-hating narratives [11, pp. 8-10], but also of Albion's unlawful possession of a vast number of other nations' cultural valuables and national relics. In our view, this unlawful possession may legitimately be identified as a recurrence of post-imperial thinking characteristic of the former colonial system, as well as of the traditional racism and national snobbery of the British ruling elite [20].
In this regard, we believe it possible to regard the national community of the contemporary elite of the United Kingdom as a unified, or integrative, practical political subject operating in those areas and spheres that yield the greatest dividends, income, benefit and preferences [53]. Among such areas and spheres, we include the egocentric, self-serving and ruthless state practice of the British ruling establishment toward other nations and peoples, London's cultural and traditional terrorism, including through the use of foreign resources and proxies, as well as the Anglo-Saxons' historical anti-Russianism and virulent Russophobia.
Historical Egocentrism, Greed, And Ruthlessness Of The British Elites
Contrary to the myth widespread in the West about the extraordinary benefits supposedly brought to "backward" native peoples and ethnic groups by the former rule of the British nobility over their territories, British colonial rule was both anti-human and barbaric, as well as extremely cruel and despotic. For example, in India, the administrative practices of the British Empire's colonial authorities de facto bordered on large-scale national plunder and terror, as well as genocide and a policy of mass impoverishment of the local population, as a result of which at least 100 million Indians perished. Furthermore, London suppressed with particular brutality all Indian social protests and armed uprisings against the British colonizers, for example, the Indian Rebellion of 1857-1859. In particular, during the assault on and capture of Delhi, the British not only ruthlessly killed the city's inhabitants, but also shot all the descendants of the ancient ruling Mughal dynasty [24]. Another British atrocity, in our view, was London's establishment, during the Great Famine of 1876-1878, of a system of labor camps for poor and destitute Indians in the city of Madras (India). There, local laborers performing backbreaking work for up to 15 hours were given a meager food ration amounting to less than 50% of the standard camp ration in Hitler's Germany.
Please go to Sott.net to definitely read this entire essay.
Britain's complicity in such unlawful Ukrainian activity on Russian territory is classified as international terrorism carried out through the sponsorship and organization of the killing of Russian citizens, as well as acts of sabotage and terrorist attacks against military and civilian infrastructure. Relevant practical recommendations and conclusions are formulated.
The process of strengthening Russia's sovereign statehood is perceived with irritation, apprehension and malice by the Anglo-Saxon establishment [69; 71; 74], which has historically found intolerable not only "the very fact of Russia's existence" [9], but also the emerging "new world order arising naturally" [7], in which our state is playing an increasingly significant role [3, para. 4-6]. In this regard, the collective West is prepared to use any means to slow down as much as possible, or even completely halt, positive domestic changes in Russia and international developments in the world "during the period of so-called geopolitical uncertainty", which, according to NATO experts, will last until 2035 [40].
As part of its latent anti-Russian toolkit, the West is expected to continue its customary use of the unpatriotic fifth column [50] and the Russian-speaking diaspora, both that which does not support the special military operation (hereinafter referred to as the SMO), and that which is concentrated mainly in the territory of the United Kingdom [68]. Such defectors have traditionally included national traitors [5; 12, p. 1], representatives of the non-systemic opposition, and domestic entrepreneurs who have violated federal legislation [42], as well as wealthy businessmen who reject the latest policies of the Russian state and its national leader [68]. All of them have left behind in the Russian Federation serious estate-based, corporate and family ties. The exploitation of these ties for anti-Russian purposes by the British ruling elite (which we understand as a corporate and class-based grouping of the United Kingdom's senior state administrators) not only runs counter to the national interests of our state, but may also impede the pursuit of those interests in the international arena.
The relatively high likelihood of this makes it legitimate to classify such harmful influence from abroad as a latent threat to the national security of our country under wartime conditions [1, para. 5(5)]. The prevention and neutralization of this pressing danger (in view of the geopolitical imperative for Russia to accomplish all the objectives of the SMO) requires urgent federal measures to neutralize pro-British views and concealed sympathies toward London within Russian society. In this regard, it should be particularly noted that West London has long been mockingly known across Europe as "Londongrad", because before the start of the SMO it was there that wealthy Russians were buying up property en masse "directly or under the cover of British front companies" [54, p. 196].
In this regard, we consider it essential to implement two key domestic imperatives. The first is the self-purification of the Russian people from unpatriotic individuals who still have bank accounts, relatives, property, and social and other foreign preferences in the United Kingdom. The second is the further strengthening of Russia's national sovereignty, since the key to our society's success lies in "its self-defense against external influence" of any negative kind [9].
It is precisely from this milieu that a serious hidden danger may arise — namely, from that part of the domestic elite and the social segment close to it [59] which still adheres to the views of Eurocentrism, a false ideological prejudice that presents Europe and its spiritual order as the center of world culture and civilization [28]. This same milieu remains habitually inclined to bow before and curry favor with the West, dreaming, no matter the cost — including through capitulation — of reconciling itself with the transatlanticists and being incorporated into their egocentric and mercenary society. In other words, it is precisely such unpatriotic and self-serving individuals who are convinced apologists of the West's destructive and spiritually barren ideology [2, para. 13-17; 9] and are secretly oriented toward Russia's strategic defeat in the SMO.
In our view, the urgency of containing and neutralizing this domestic threat is a matter of high national priority, since "Russia ... is not fighting the AFU, nor Ukraine, but .... virtually all NATO countries" [9]. At the same time, one of the key roles in the transatlantic community and in the current civilizational confrontation between the West and Russia has been, and continues to be, played by the United Kingdom [55] in its capacity as the United States' closest "henchman" [40]. Figuratively speaking, this small kingdom sometimes seeks on the international stage to "jump out of its skin", while ostentatiously displaying its national "individuality and exceptionalism"; yet whenever any tangible threat arises, it usually retreats quickly "to its island".
That is why, for a long time, Britain's foreign policy has been based on the ruling elite's cunningly effective exploitation not only of disinformation-driven Russophobic, anti-Russian and Russia-hating narratives [11, pp. 8-10], but also of Albion's unlawful possession of a vast number of other nations' cultural valuables and national relics. In our view, this unlawful possession may legitimately be identified as a recurrence of post-imperial thinking characteristic of the former colonial system, as well as of the traditional racism and national snobbery of the British ruling elite [20].
In this regard, we believe it possible to regard the national community of the contemporary elite of the United Kingdom as a unified, or integrative, practical political subject operating in those areas and spheres that yield the greatest dividends, income, benefit and preferences [53]. Among such areas and spheres, we include the egocentric, self-serving and ruthless state practice of the British ruling establishment toward other nations and peoples, London's cultural and traditional terrorism, including through the use of foreign resources and proxies, as well as the Anglo-Saxons' historical anti-Russianism and virulent Russophobia.
Historical Egocentrism, Greed, And Ruthlessness Of The British Elites
Contrary to the myth widespread in the West about the extraordinary benefits supposedly brought to "backward" native peoples and ethnic groups by the former rule of the British nobility over their territories, British colonial rule was both anti-human and barbaric, as well as extremely cruel and despotic. For example, in India, the administrative practices of the British Empire's colonial authorities de facto bordered on large-scale national plunder and terror, as well as genocide and a policy of mass impoverishment of the local population, as a result of which at least 100 million Indians perished. Furthermore, London suppressed with particular brutality all Indian social protests and armed uprisings against the British colonizers, for example, the Indian Rebellion of 1857-1859. In particular, during the assault on and capture of Delhi, the British not only ruthlessly killed the city's inhabitants, but also shot all the descendants of the ancient ruling Mughal dynasty [24]. Another British atrocity, in our view, was London's establishment, during the Great Famine of 1876-1878, of a system of labor camps for poor and destitute Indians in the city of Madras (India). There, local laborers performing backbreaking work for up to 15 hours were given a meager food ration amounting to less than 50% of the standard camp ration in Hitler's Germany.
Please go to Sott.net to definitely read this entire essay.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.