Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "René will Rendite" channel.

  1. It's divide-and-rule. At the turn of the previous century, around 1900, Washington DC set out to divide (Europe) and gain (from collective European madness). Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact). Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it. "Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene And "observe the details and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump (Trump Doctrine") and others... All of these terms can be googled for more context. Note that in order to play this game, the divider must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily. What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favouritism of mostly Paris and London? London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself. Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars. A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany (1871), was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy), and this "division" of the continent was subsequently strengthened, not weakened by the "ententes" (1904/1907): Divide-and-rule. The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not generally disputed by most historians. To avoid = to separate = to "divide" others... A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine. It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing. The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..." A declaration which would not last long. LOL, no. They were not satiated. After a period of strategic consolidation following the Civil War (1865), leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence". The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895. To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied... How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain? Answer: favouritism. "Favor" some above others...temporarily. For London, it meant "nodding off" the conquests of GB/British Empire in Africa, by not offering any substantial opposition to the Second Boer War, as "interests" were coordinated (see the Great Rapprochement between London and Washington DC following 1895). Sign away the independence of people, for own gains elsewhere, which is typical of the behavior of an empire. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well. It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind. Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but a global divide-and-rule strategy of power: divide Europeans and all others, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacitly supported the German position and insisted on Moroccan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism. Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today. Classical of typical globally effected divide-and-rule policies: - the "ententes" which London made with France (1904) and Russia (1907), which encircled Germany almost completely by adding the oceans to the "encirclement" (this would have pleased Washington DC strategists greatly) - the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which "divided" Europeans with a "ruling" - the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine similarly "drew lines on the map" which "divided" Europe into "friends" and "enemies" A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers. IT WAS THE (QUOTE) "POLICY OF THE WORLD" Or, one could state that if one is far enough away from the effects of the own decisions, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else. One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets. Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity. From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy." Elements of this technique involve: - creating or encouraging divisions ... - to prevent alliances that could challenge ... - distributing forces that they overpower the other - aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate - fostering distrust and enmity Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories." [edited for clarity re. the states/empires level of things] "Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way. Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact.
    1