Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "BBC News"
channel.
-
I just came here from a comments section from a video praising "hero Trump" for his ...ahem... "efforts to stop the war", with hundreds and hundreds of fools arguing about the effects, and their priorities, and fingers pointing here and there.... but maybe 1 or 2 mentioning the causes of this war which started 30 years ago.
Trump of course, during his first term (2017-2021), did not stop the "marching empire" [systemic expansion], so he was just another POTUS, an imperialist, just like all the others before...
-----------------------
Why is anybody surprised? The USA instigates wars or does not avoid them (even if possible), or lays the foundations for crises it aims to profit from using the divide-and-rule technique in IR. It is also a divide-and-rule Mecca for the ultra-rich who practice it on the domestic tier also.
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided people are easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy. Lies (incl. "lying by omission") is an integral part of the strategy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
1
-
Actually, it was quite easy solve.
What lacked was willpower.
As the definition "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I see.... The USA has the most powerful "weapon" on its side: feelings.
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry Ukraine.
On behalf of my crooked leaders.
So now that history has taken the (somewhat) predictable path in the Ukraine, it's time for slimy politians to put themselves in the limelight again.
Predictably the spectrum of responses range from finger pointing everywhere else (except the finger-pointer of course) in attempts of deflection, to the "not my fault"-style washing hands in innocence (Pilatus). It's always never the fault of any of these self-proclaimed "good guys" who are "always on the right side of history".
Far and wide, not a spine in sight anywhere.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose.
Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever thought about what such a policy meant?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be written off...
It means these slimy deceitful Albions expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
To hell with them.
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy..."
Me: ROFL
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary lines drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that "faraway empires" would protect them forever and ever...lmao
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
Even before that, France had decided to befriend itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the English Channel if a conflict evolved unfavorably. How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please? It looks very interesting. Fight to the last bullet? Nah...I've changed my mind. That's not my interests."
Or the British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire. In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies...
How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century: "Hmmmm, interesting markets they have. Want some..."
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations.
Make painful compromises, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Deepen relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer/rule".
Here is my personal advice to leaders.
When my country's slimy deceitful leaders come with their smiling faces and backpats (a skill honed to perfection by "body language experts"), then simply put on a suitable fake smile yourself and pat them back...and then send them on their way back to where they came from.
Wisen up. Kick them out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@afineliner740 How "I came up with that" is written in history.
It has happened twice before, that Berlin seeking a peacefull end to a war Russia was engaged in, turned 180 degrees, as the alpha (London at the time) turned the tables.
First was 1879, after the Russo-Turkish War (Bismarck, the "honest broker" almost ending up with a continental European war, which he just managed to avert).
The second time was 1905, after the Russo-Japanese War of 1904/05 when the same happened. The Treaty of Bjorko demanded from Russia to end the war, thereby coercing Russia into a humiliating withdraw.
What makes you think Berlin strategists want to be seen as acting unilaterally, or are going to force Russia into a repeat of that, or humiliating defeats, without strong multilateral (NATO/USA) parallel actions?
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the indivual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
Here is the full text of the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel...
https://www.knesset.gov.il/docs/eng/megilat_eng.htm
It is more noteworthy in what is not mentioned...
Note here, that the borders were not defined (vaguely stated as "Eretz Israel"/ Biblical Israel, which you can google for more info. Click on "images", and you might understand why the Arab neighbors were not amused...)
Secondly, the majority of inhabitants at this time, were still Arabs, which were ONLY mentioned in a little paragraph down at the bottom somewhere, and in connection with "rights" blah, blah.
Note also, that no mention is made of "democratic state". Obviously, since at this stage democracy would have backfired, since the Jews were still outnumbered 30/70.
The text makes it quite clear who would be boss...
Israel only legally became a "democratic state" in 1985.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_and_democratic_state
Of course, at this stage the majorities have been completely reversed (80/20 for Jews), so that becoming "democratic" was now no risk....
1