Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Neutrality Studies" channel.

  1. NGOs I was in Uganda in 1999 and this is what the locals told me about all the NGOs with their spiffy-clean Toyota Landcruisers: That they were trojan horses to "buy" potentially useful people, local academia, local celebrities, politicians, etc., etc., via the pretext of "helping". Rather than being "that arrogant white dude" dismissing the theory outright, I decided to research it and discovered it was (to a massive extent) "true". Rather than "teaching the locals how to fish", these government/private extensions of the US/EC/EU corporate empire were "fishing for locals" for the empires (USA/EU) to employ as local representatives of power, so the system of exploitation of resources could continue into the next cycle, which was post-Colonial exploitation of Africa, via the newly instated, supported, approved "top tiers"... Note that this strategy of "fishing for locals" was not reserved for Africa only, since it was used onto Great Britain and continental Europe as well, and it started with the dismantling of the monarchies a century ago, the "princes" of Europe (gatekeepers), and their replacements by "mercenaries" (outsiders/serving outside masters/ serving money-driven aims).
    153
  2. Two of the few European leaders who actually base their speeches on actual geopolitical analyses. Well done Ireland, they do you proud. 👍
    125
  3. You don't have to study thousands of books and watch endless debates on the topic "How US foreign policy works." Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it. Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism. The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism. The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and using friends, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism... It means to AVOID the unity of all others. The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia. The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule. Systemic/ideological expansion into: - Eastern Europe. - Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route) - Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route) Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. The imperialists and their apologist even chant the same slogans today, and still use the same strategies of expansion as they did 500, 200 and 100 years ago, but are too ignorant and indifferent to either know or care. As always, the warning voices of the sane halves are ignored, downplayed, "finger pointed" at as "unpatriotic," or as being "in bed with the enemy", and many other forms of equally "rhyming history." It is what they spend billions on every year so their empires can keep on marching marching marching marching to the jolly tunes. The systems and corporations came in droves for SYSTEMIC EXPANSION and all they ever wanted was peace...peace...PEACE....PIECE... A little piece over here for a little American/NATO base. A nice little piece over there, of the Nordstream project. A piece of the Panama Canal. A tiny sliver of those Ukrainian raw materials. A nice little chunk of a percentage of political influence. And ALL of Greenland... The meddling created by the own proactive divide-and-rule strategy of power then results in effects: Imperialistic meddling is always a CAUSE to which there will be a resulting EFFECT.
    53
  4. If the USA had wanted to avoid a problem in the ME altogether, they could have offered the Jews a "US state," in the USA. After the Indian Wars it was already clear what happens if one sends large groups of settler colonists into lands already inhabited by others: resistance. Claiming political naivity isn't an excuse. The strategists knew exactly what they were doing and why (own gain). The empires didn't wish to avoid problems. They obviously intended to gain from strife, and this was the MO wherever these imperialists went (see the White Highlands, in Kenya, which was taking place in parallel).
    48
  5. The USA has so many bright capable minds, but none of them seem to be in charge in Washington DC. 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] America's allies and foes in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues. It is how divide and rule is implemented. Set up European and Eurasian nations against each other. The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Brzinzki (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
    44
  6. Back in the 1990s Tel Aviv was sneakily trying to introduce Apartheid, at the same time South Africa was busy ending it under international pressure. Of course, Israel was (according to imperialist logic) "doing nothing wrong"... At the time the world was applauding South Africa as it ended Apartheid, and simultaneously the world was applauding Israel's attempt at introducing Apartheid, branding it as just "trying to create peace." Note, whilst singling out the Palestinians/Arafat as being "unreasonable" and "rejecting the Israeli olive leaf of peace...blah, blah..." as the accepted narrative of the Mainstream Media. Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty. Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, "We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [edit: the historical examples being the "Apartheid dependencies," of the "Bantustan"] ... and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines ... The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term ... Jerusalem (would be) united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty ... will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev. We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth." All the questionable clauses, eluding reality by use of the typical vague political doublespeak, have been highlighted. Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control. What that would have meant, we see today. Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city. Notice how Rabin, commonly held as a dove in politics, never used the term "full sovereign state" when he referred to this "Palestine", but the term "less than a state." Did you spot the use of [Israel's] "natural growth"? Critical question... Where to? Where would Israelis/Zionists "naturally grow" to, if there were equal neighbors, as a balanced power, which could actually stop any such Zionist settler "growth". The Jordan Valley, extends BOTH sides of the Jordan River. Now, I'm sure that was just another slip-up too, of people who don't understand simple geography. Whatever. It is fairly clear what they wanted, and there are historical examples for this: the "pool of cheap labor" within the own borders, as the concept of the "Bantustan" was for the RSA, given a little bit of "independence" to manage own affairs, but de facto/de jure powerless to stop the CONTROLLING power, intended to be Jerusalem, as Jweish capital city with the right to introduce permit laws, etc. It is literally what RSA did with their "Bantustans". Back then the people could not be fooled. They saw through the deceit, and rightfully called it out for what it was: just another Apartheid ploy to avoid the rise of political equals. Sad reality? Today masses of fools are being mislead into praising Israel's attempted implementation of Apartheid as an attempt at peace, while at the same time denouncing a similar scheme actually implemented by the RSA in stages after WW2, as being bigoted/racist.
    39
  7. Neutrality is the only way forward. Neutrality does not mean remaining indifferent to wrongful deeds states commit. It means acknowledging that human beings are fundamentally flawed, via their beliefs and feelings, and can be easily deceived into supporting wrongful actions under the guise of "creating better worlds". Keep up the good work.
    32
  8. "The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015 Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA. That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia). Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have come to conclusion that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data. Here are the critical questions. If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division? How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"? Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power. That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power). It is to create confusion, which can be exploited. We should never forget that Mearsheimer famously "predicted" the war in the Ukraine, not only because it was clear how the "encirled" REact (Russia), but also because it is clear how the "encirclers" (the "buck passers" USA/EU/NATO) PROact in strategy.
    31
  9. Just remember everybody, that war criminals like the recently deceased Lt. Calley (Mai Lei/Vietnam/500 victims) can expect a pardon if convicted, and widespread apologia as long as one is "on the right side of history."
    30
  10. "There are two ways to conquer a country. One is by invasion, the other by debt." - John Quincy Adams It's the Ukraine getting conquered by her "friends". It is not Russia which is being conquered.
    30
  11. Nuland will simply be replaced by the next one standing by in the wings, ready to continue "business/politics as usual."
    28
  12. French and German economies are tanking, heading for a likely recession. Who woulda guessed that cutting yourself off from reliable and affordable sources of energy, could backfire and hit the own people 😮
    27
  13. What is wrong with "understanding" something?
    26
  14. 2014 Maidan Square The intention of regime change operations is to steer a world which is favorable to own goals. The first tentative steps by Washington DC to benefit from a Europian "revolutionary spirit" (aka war) in which shadows the USA could then grow into North America, was in the direct leadup to the Napoleonic Wars. The prototype for all following US regime change ops, was carried out in the leadup to 1803, with Adams functioning as the revolutionary training expert, "training" ...ahem... "Dutch patriots" in the ways of the American Revolution. If revolutionary France (who ineffectively also backed these "Dutch patiots") joined revolutionary Netherlands, it would have constituted the "pistol pointing at the heart of England." (Port of Antwerp as staging area for large fleets). The biggest US "regime change operation" to date was WW1. In order for peace talks to proceed, Washington DC insisted on regime change in Berlin first. German leaders had no choice but to topple the German central government in Berlin. All of such meddling are indicative of an active policy of divide-and-rule.
    25
  15. Welcome to those who have "smelled the coffee" 🙏✌️
    25
  16.  @forwadnothing8212  These countries are only "free" up until the time the try to break away from the "protectors" (lol) and do their own thing. That is then the time they realize how "free" the world really is. The minute these minors wish to leave the protection racket, the threats and meddling starts.
    24
  17. We saw this in the leadup to 2003. The media beating the war drums for politicians.
    24
  18. "When two neighbouring countries fight each other, just know the USA visited one." - Nelson Mandela (Region: Southern Africa/Big picture timestamp: Cold War). The statement is not quite correct. When two neighbours fight each other, just know that an empire has been there previously. It's the old joke that "If two fish are fighting, the British Empire has been there." It is a truism about imperialism in general, and how divide-and-rule works. Set up neighbours against each other, using a variety of ever-consistent techniques and strategies. With absolute certainty, the tribal leaders of Europe joked the same way about the Roman Empire, openly flaunting their "Pax Romana" whilst in the background covertly favoring one "neighbor", whilst setting them up against the others, using whatever reasoning it wanted. Outsiders will come to a state (also covertly politically or via NGOs as the strategy of "cultural- and political capture"), and these outsiders try to lay down the foundation for division by setting up the "new-found friend" against its neighbours and if it is unsuccessful in one "state" (status quo), it will simply go to the neighbours and try the same. The more neighbours, the more chances of a successful division of powers, which is beneficial to the "divider". Because if these neighbours all end up fighting, the "divider" vacuums off gains (of various kinds) in the background. Such implemented and leveraged divisions do not necessarily stem from evil intent, since most of the participants in a divide-and-rule strategy have absolutely no idea that they have become "actors" in a great game, the scope of which they remain ignorant of. Even those with good intentions (political doves) can create division. No amount of agreements, accords, negotiation or skills will ever stop the "dividers", for nothing they sign will stop their divisive ways. The oil-rich Middle East, MENA-region is a perfect example of the above, which is globally practiced today. The only thing which changed between the Roman Empire and the current times is technology, which vastly shrunk the world and the REACH of the controlling empire. At the Helsinki Summit in 1992, the participants stated that (quote) "...no state in our CSCE community will strengthen its security at the expense of the security of other states." Our US/collective Western governments do not care about the spirit of such agreements. Their stated attempt of systemic expansion (aka NATO enlargement) means they do not care how many people suffer consequences which follow as causal effects of such deceptive practices. Look back at their histories filled with unending misinformation and disinformation leading billions of people with only a passing interest in history to draw the wrong conclusions from historical events. In the so-called "Anglosphere" most only know that their grandfathers, their fathers, uncles and cousins fight/fought in wars all over the world, and they must therefore see some sense in it all. Meanwhile, not a week goes by and some new historical example of deceit is revealed, incl. the use of such "broken promises" (see the current upset in New Zealand, of entire peoples deceived and systemically lied to, and the "divides" such deceit still causes 200 years later). Closer to home... Of course there was an alternative to NATO expansion, which set in during the 1990s, as the eastwards march of the empire on its marching route (USA/EU/NATO). A Generalplan Ost for US/collective Western corporations. Step by step, marching orders into an existing status quo, hoping nobody notices... The alternative should have been to neutralize the territories of the ex-Warsaw Pact states, so that these did not impede the security of any other European state, just as decided roughly the same time in Helsinki. An Intermarium-/Three Seas Initiative of neutral states between the Mediterranean-, Baltic- and Black Seas, friendly to all and a danger to none, could have been forged out of the Cold War, and shaped out of the territories the USSR was withdrawing from. A historical example of this is the Holy Roman Empire which sectioned off a part of its border regions (Belgium/Luxemburg), as neutral buffer zone after the Napoleonic Wars (1815). This then protected (de jure) Central Europe from attacks by France. It could have been the recipe for eternal peace in Europe, for as long as none of the "sides" tried to encroach/encircle on the other.
    23
  19. It's the same people who'll tell you that WW1 was "all about Belgium", whereas in reality (geopolitics) it was about avoiding the collapse of France (AVOID the "single hegemony" on the continent), something the British lords knew their own population would never volunteer to fight for. Deception, even of the own people, is always the intention.
    23
  20. Europe is already lost, and it started down the slippery slope following the year 1900. The window for change is closing fast. In this regard, I'll refer to a recent questionnaire carried out in Kiev, in which the interviewee honestly answered the question what the election of the Trump admin will mean to the Ukraine, with "The Ukraine is e-ffed, and will end like Poland in 1939." This is far from anecdotal, since it is an actual strategy of power to "bleed friends, and gain." Ukraine today = Poland 1939 = "fight to the last Pole" in 1939, and fight to the last Ukrainian soldier today. The way history rhymes, reveals the strategies of power. That answer is valid for the USAs "friends" (see Kissinger's logic of it being "deadly to be the USAs friend"). The problem is that Europe is filled with weak and sycophantic leaders who make friends with people who tell them exactly what they can expect. For any Eastern European, an eternal NATO as protective shield is quite the speculative assumption as default setting for an argument, seeing that it was only quite recently formed (with regards to the history of Europe). There should therefore be no definite conclusion that it is going to last forever (Lindy's Law). NATO was created in order to surround/encircle the SU after WW2, as the "fist" of European power which was steered by the USA as it rose from the ashes of WW2, and for exactly this purpose. It's function was to ensure US global hegemony and domination, and encircle/encroach on the USSR together with Japan, Formosa/Taiwan, South Korea, etc. (as staging areas) on the other side of Eurasia. GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS Only the fact nukes were available saved the planet from a conventional "WW3"-scenario declared out of a local/limited war, and which would have invariably started soon after 1945, and after a short breather filled with limited wars around the fringes. All accompanied by new set of "finger pointing "Who started it?"-rhetorical geniuses who would have been set up against each other, sitting in the trenches of such a "conventional WW3"-scenario. Thank goodness both sides had nukes, so the restraint was systemic and declaring war would have been a MAD act. That was of course in opposite to the logic of both WW1 and WW2, which were declared by the hegemony, from the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER (long war scenario) strategizing how it could win, if only such a declared war remained a "long war scenario" in which others bled for the continued status quo. What saved the planet after WW2 was over, was that there would be no way to make a nuclear war a "long war scenario." If one wants to reason and understand "Why WW1/WW2?" That's it. Create a situation which would be unacceptable for oneself (grand strategy of becoming encircled by a pattern of relationships), then impose this exact grand strategy onto the power rising in economic strength, and then wait for the situation to deteriorate, calling out a "world war" at an opportune moment, gathering in all the little "buck catchers" to do most of the fighting and dying, by standing off from the conflict as long as possible, using a GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER. After WW2, NATO was created (first step of escalation), in the self-declared Cold War, which started in 1946 ("Iron Curtain" as first emotional appeal, followed by further step-by-step strategy of escalating reality) because it was useful to the ambitions of Washington DC to become the world's leading power. Read the strategy papers. There was no "hot WW3" after 1945, because that would have been kinda self-defeating for the new global hegemony to declare it, based on some or other local limited war being declared the own "final red line". Reality: Before 1945, the then global hegemony... Declared WW1 (out of a series of local limited wars on the continent), to avoid the single hegemony on the continent. Declared WW2 (out of a series of local limited wars on the continent), to avoid the single hegemony on the continent. Declared the Cold War, by encircling its main continental European/Eurasian rival. "Declaring" a world war out of that, was not possible, so wars remained "by proxy". Let's see if the pattern (geopolitics/grand strategy) rhymes again... NATO can be disbanded or weakened the minute it suites the Pentagon/Washington DC, by simply withdrawing from it by pushing issues until some of the signatories sheer out, dividing its power (divide-and-rule = pull bricks from the wall to weaken it). After the 1990s NATO became useful as "buck catcher" (John Mearsheimer theory) to be employed against the SU, and it remained a useful "buck catcher" for the hegemony after its purpose actually ended in the 1990s. From the ashes of this disbanded NATO, the next non-nuclear little power/proxy like Poland can then be steered by the hegemony, using its off-continental position of power, as political clout and military power. If the Pentagon/Washington DC decides to leave NATO, who's going to stop them? Internally, in US domestic politics, there will be enough finger-pointing fools showing up screaming "Maybe those Euro-weanies should have just paid the 2%?!?"(fingers pointing/blame game). Any politicians dream-come-true scenario in free societies. The writers of history won't even have to work too hard to cover up the strategy. The narrative writes itself. The deception covers itself, by those who never read the strategy papers, creating a slew of "support" which justifies any pre-conceived strategy. Rule the world, by division. If one already knows what games are being played, one can take educated guesses about the future, which will be quiet accurate: The weakening of Germany/France, and their economic collapse? Already predicted, because that's what happens if one bases the own POWER on division, and follows the master divider (Washington DC/Pentagon) without questioning. That Europe will collapse because of its weak leadership structures of power, all taking place today as people watch on in surprise? All already predicted, more than 10 years ago. All of these causal effects of own actions (power) and inaction (weakness) have already been discussed by top geostrategists over the past 10 years or so, and available to those who follow these discussions. What happens if the USA simply adapts/adopts the "Greene Amendment," and simply determines that "NATO is not reliable" (sic.)? If there's suddenly a lot of pressure from the various and multitude of competing entities of POWER within the USA (lobby groups, strategic think tanks, plus the pressure of the so-called "street" as public opinion) to leave NATO, who in Europe will make them stay? In grand strategy, the off-continental European power can pull the "Uriah move": after Europeans become set up against each other, then withdraw when the flames fan up, then PIVOT TO ASIA and instigate war here, hoping more willing fools will step forward to "catch the buck" here too. Note, that "The Pivot to Asia" IS already the strategy. Set up others, then "pivot" somewhere else (grand strategy). What makes anybody think somebody like a Mr. "America First"(see footnote) Trump cares about an economic rival to the USA's global hegemony, a united and strong Europe? Note, that similar to the post-WW2 reality which set in after 1945, the last man standing is also a strategy of power. If everybody fights and weaken themselves, who "wins"? In order to see the reality today, we must be honest about reality in the past. ------------ Footnote 1: Wiki: "The Withdrawal Clause; This means that after 20 years since the signing of the treaty which was in 1949, thus 1969, any member state that wishes to leave just has to inform the United States that it wants to leave, and then after a year it formally leaves." Footnote 2: The slogan America First was not coined by Trump, since it goes back to Wilson and WW1 and the starting phase of the US global ambitions, signalled to all interested parties by its declaration of war on Spain in 1898. Obviously, the USA joined WW1 for "cold, hard, American interests" and the intent of gain (economically capture the European "friends" through debt, or the debt trap diplomacy through war expenditures, hidden behind appeals to emotions).
    22
  21. A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer. The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... 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? Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games. ------------------------------------- The people of the Africa 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance. Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent. Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers... Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games. -------------------------------------- The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, 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. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours. Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be used invisibly in times of peace, AND in times of crisis and war equaly. Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war... Insert levers of lies, mistrust... Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies... Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power... 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." [Critical question: Who is "we"?] And that is what they did. And that is what you are fighting for. America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist 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) regarding Eurasia for the template. 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? That is what empires have always done. Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances... The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."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 individual 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.
    21
  22. Claim: "If only the Palestinians loved their children as much as they hate Israel (there would be peace)." Quote/Golda Meir. Counter: "If only Israelis loved their neighbors as much as they loved their children, there would be peace." Evidence: "If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.” -- Ben-Gurion (Quoted on pp 855-56 in Shabtai Teveth’s Ben-Gurion in a slightly different translation). and... “It’s not a matter of maintaining the status quo. We have to create a dynamic state, oriented towards expansion.” –Ben Gurion Expansion? Where to? An obvious hint by Zionists that self-sacrifice was going to be necessary in order to gain Eretz Israel, thereby backing up the claim that this is a true "root cause", and what Golda Meir stated, followed as an effect of the cause which was Zionism...
    21
  23. History rhymes. The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story". The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit... "How" and "that" are different premises. The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were: 1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars. set up against: 2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900. The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally: Divide-and-gain (power for own systems). If not. Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground). If not. Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.). If not. Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever). If not. Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division). This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s. Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule. - Eastern Europe. - Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance). - Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance). This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico. Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for. The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever... Today? History is repeating. Albion 2.0 Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends". Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as a "advantage" see footnote), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down", Russia "out" and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up... This is divide-and-rule.
    20
  24. Yes, beware of people who appeal to your emotions, by making statements without evidence or assertion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion These people's "truth" is simply "because I say so, and all my buddies agree." 😂 Like historians/ politicians saying "we are on the right side of history, as always." Really? Who did they ask?
    19
  25. True, imagine if Texas were to simply declare independence, called out by a few "rebels" who feel oppressed, based on the 40% of Texans who would support this per polls... Washington DC:
    19
  26. The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, 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 Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900). Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors. Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule. Today, their leaders are too weak to unite. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent. Insert levers of lies, mistrust... Create favorites: favoritism... Point the systemic 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." [Critical question: Who is "we"?] And that is what they did. America's friends 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 imperialist 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) regarding Eurasia. 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? 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 individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves. "Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams That is what empires have always done. Create the default rival/enemy. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances... The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.
    19
  27. Money is only the "grease". It's the resources and strategic locations on the map, that the powerful wish control over.
    18
  28. What Claire is perfectly explaining, is what she is witnissing. What she is witnissing, is of course an effect. She is explaining the frustrations of having to deal with a system based on "divide and rule". The funny thing about the divide and rule world, is that many tell you what the problems are, but very few state how to solve it. The "divide and rule/conquer"-world is intact. It is practically as old as modern civilisation, and has never been "defeated". Those with true power will do their utmost to ensure that the "divide and rule"-world we live in today, will "rule" for all times. They are the "1%-ters", the "elites" or the "300", or the "Oberen 10,000" or whatever one wishes to call this deeply connected and entrenched system of rule and domination. "After all, the past is our only real guide to the future ... a map by which we can navigate." - Michael Mandelbaum Like all other words, even quotes about our leaders can be analysed for meaning. These are highlighted: "Governments constantly choose between telling lies and fighting wars, with the end result always being the same. One will always lead to the other." - Thomas Jefferson "The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government." - Edward Abbey "I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." - Will Rogers "Everything government touches turns to crap." - Ringo Starr "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." - Ronald Reagan "I love my country, not my government." - Jesse Ventura "I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of their way and let them have it." - Dwight D. Eisenhower "True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country." - Kurt Vonnegut "On July 4 we celebrate government of the people, by the people, and for the people, or as they are now called, corporations." - Andy Borowitz "In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful." - Leo Tolstoy "It is bad governments, not bad people, who cause revolutions." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe "A government which is not liked by the artists is certainly a bad government, because artist sees very well what is behind the masks!" - Mehmet Murat Ildan "A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth." ― Albert Einstein On the topic of "divide and rule", as a strategy of power, and a means used by the powerful throughout history: "When two brothers are busy fighting, an evil man can easily attack and rob their poor mother. Mankind should always stay united, standing shoulder to shoulder so evil can never cheat and divide them." ― Suzy Kassem "Divide and rule, the politician cries; Unite and lead, is watchword of the wise." ― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe "The rich ruling class has used tribalism, a primitive caveman instinct, to their advantage since the beginning of time. They use it to divide and conquer us. They drive wedges between us peasants and make us fight each other, so we won’t rise up against our rulers and fight them. You can observe the same old trick everywhere in America today... That doesn’t just happen all by itself. There are always voices instigating these fights." ― Oliver Markus Malloy "Divide and rule, weaken and conquer, love and enslave, these are three tenets of politics" ― Bangambiki Habyarimana "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)." ― Mark Twain
    18
  29. Back in the 1990s Tel Aviv was sneakily trying to introduce Apartheid, at the same time South Africa was busy ending it under international pressure. Of course, Israel was (according to imperialist logic) "doing nothing wrong"... At the time the world was applauding South Africa as it ended Apartheid, and simultaneously the world was applauding Israel's attempt at introducing Apartheid, branding it as just "trying to create peace." Note, whilst singling out the Palestinians/Arafat as being "unreasonable" and "rejecting the Israeli olive leaf of peace...blah, blah..." as the accepted narrative of the Mainstream Media. Israel never intended for Palestinians to ever live in full sovereignty. Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, "We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [edit: the historical examples being the "Apartheid dependencies," of the "Bantustan"] ... and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines ... The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term ... Jerusalem (would be) united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty ... will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev. We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth." All the questionable clauses, eluding reality by use of the typical vague political doublespeak, have been highlighted. Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control. What that would have meant, we see today. Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city. Notice how Rabin, commonly held as a dove in politics, never used the term "full sovereign state" when he referred to this "Palestine", but the term "less than a state." Did you spot the use of [Israel's] "natural growth"? Critical question... Where to? Where would Israelis/Zionists "naturally grow" to, if there were equal neighbours, as a balanced power, which could actually stop any such Zionist settler "growth". The Jordan Valley, extends BOTH sides of the Jordan River. Now, I'm sure that was just another slip-up too, of people who don't understand simple geography. Whatever. It is fairly clear what they wanted, and there are historical examples for this: the "pool of cheap labor" within the own borders, as the concept of the "Bantustan" was for the RSA, given a little bit of "independence" to manage some of the own affairs, but de facto/de jure powerless to stop the CONTROLLING power, intended to be Jerusalem, as Jweish capital city with the right to introduce permit laws, etc. It is literally what RSA did with their "Bantustans". Back then the people could not be fooled. They saw through the deceit, and rightfully called it out for what it was: just another Apartheid ploy to avoid the rise of political equals. Sad reality? Today masses of fools are being mislead into praising Israel's attempted implementation of Apartheid as an attempt at peace, while at the same time denouncing a similar scheme actually implemented by the RSA in stages after WW2, as being bigoted/racist. "Imperialism" and apartheid (divide-and-rule as minority CONTROL) has been sugar-coated under the guise of "freedom" or "western values", incidentally the same slogans which were used 100 years ago at the height of colonialism/Western imperialism. The doublespeak to mislead the masses is exactly the same.
    17
  30. At 22:45 The US crushing an ally like Japan, which was too successful, is nothing new. After WW2 it crushed the British Empire, using economic warfare. Quote... "What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116) "By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117) "Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003) In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers. ----------------------------------- "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise." [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
    17
  31. To ensure the superiority of the British Empire, Halford Mackinder summarised his theory on geopolitics as follows: "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland (edit: roughly the area of Western Russia and Eastern Europe); who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world." Note here that Royal Navy battleships could not reach this "heartland" for direct rule, the own population figures were to low for overpowering or invading this region, and the local continental European political/economic powers here were too strong for an outside power to implement indirect rule (per proxy). A hundred years later, the new "rulers of the world" in Washington DC, still eager to assert their own "full spectrum domination" (yes, that is a real term used in other strategy papers): "... how America manages Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent ... About 75 percent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about 60 percent of the world's GNP and about threefourths of the world's known energy resources. Eurasia is also the location of most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states... The world's two most populous aspirants to regional hegemony and global influence are Eurasian. All of the potential political and/or economic challengers to American primacy are Eurasian." Excerpt from "THE GRAND CHESSBOARD American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives" by Zbigniew Brzezinski Notice the word: "manages". Strategies like "managing", "moderating", or the similar concept of "steering", all taking place in a comprehensive strategy aka "divide and rule". A strategy so simple most people will kick themselves when they find out how it works: Once one has attained a position of superior power, pick a favorate (favoratism), or two, or three, and start "managing/directing" like the boss of a company delegating tasks... The only difference between the two powers, one gaining and the other waning, was that after WW2 the USA took over this very same strategy from London. More and more analysts are discovering (archival evidence) that this overpowering of the British Empire, which was implemented in stages by her own "special relationship"-best friend the USA after WW2, was not simply a matter of luck, or a matter of "global hegemony falling into the lap of the USA" or the "good guys winning", as popularly believed, but rather a long-term premeditated strategy. Search for "Ho--w Amer..ica bro-ke the Br.tish Empire / the other Graet Gam..e 1941-1947" here on YouTube... Washington DC overpowered their own "best fwiends" using the very same "divide and rule"-technique London had previously implemented ON THE CONTINENT. Critical question. If it is the historical realisation ever since before Mackinder (Geographical Pivot of History/1904) that a united Eurasia in some or other form, at the "core" of the planet is the danger to the periphery, then what is the strategy to avoid that? This simply begs the further question: What strategies were the periphery (UK, USA) going to employ to avoid/prevent these regions from uniting into mutually beneficial cooperation, or formating as single powers (by military force or close alliances)? Answers: The Treaty of Versailles, was "divide and rule": Europeans were divided, with a ruling... The Truman Doctrine was "divide and rule": Europeans, were yet again, divided with a "ruling". Even today, Europeans are being "managed" in ways they simply cannot imagine for themselves (individual level). Creeping up on Russia post-1990s, using "proxies/tools" (Eastern Europeans ex-WP states), is the exact same technique. The desired endsieg is to get others into the state of "extending" the rival to such a point, doing the "heavy lifting", so that the "dividers" can move in and "divide" Russian citizens (of course, these are multi-lingual and multi-ethnic) with "rulings" to surround China... Whatever the outcome in the Ukraine or Israel/Gaza, the dividers in Washington DC have already achieved their aim. Eurasia is "divided" into multiple "teams", all arguing with each other and pointing fingers, playing the blame game, unable to unite into greater powers...
    17
  32. The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... 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? Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games. ------------------------------------- The people of Africa 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance. Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent, siphon off the gains, which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent. Give them money, and the local little tools will dance for the dividers... Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games. -------------------------------------- The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, 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. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours. Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet. Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war... Insert levers of lies, mistrust... Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies... Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power... 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." [Critical question: Who is "we"?] And that is what they did. And that is what you are fighting for. America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist 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) regarding Eurasia for the template. 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? That is what empires have always done. Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances... The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."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 individual 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.
    17
  33. Yugoslavia (1980/90s), Georgia, Taiwan, Philippines, Xinjiang, Myanmar....the "list" of victims and future potential "buck catchers" of US/collective Western imperialism is looooong... They are not satiated. They never will be. Their greed for systemic expansion is endless.
    16
  34. Wolf in sheep's clothing. One of the oldest cloak-and-dagger games.
    16
  35. Search the term "blame shifting"...
    16
  36. Keeping Germany as "down" as possible, and keeping Russia as "out" of any comprehensive European solution as possible, for mutually agreed upon comprehensive security agreements is a recurring issue in European systems interacting. It mainly turned out as very beneficial for outside powers, especially the USA. Not only logically, but also statistically, should Western continental Europe and Eastern continental Europe ever unite, with shared good relations to China, it would overpower the USA as world hegemon. Basically, keeping Central European "brains" (innovation and technology) and Russian "muscle" (manpower, strategic location, plus raw materials) apart, has a long history which spanned two empires. The British Empire before World War 2, as stated in Mackinder's Pivot of History (1904) and the new American Century after 1945. It started a long time ago, with the British Empire setting out to avoid more unity, and breaking up the Three Kaiser League as a stated goal. "Disraeli also achieved a hidden objective. Beaconsfield revealed to Henry Drummond Wolff that the British mission to the Congress of Berlin had two major objectives. Next to making a tolerable settlement for the Porte, our great object was to break up, and permanently prevent, the alliance of the three Empires, and I maintain there never was a general diplomatic result more completely effected. Of course, it does not appear on the protocols; it was realised by personal influence alone, both on Andrassy [the Austrian representative] and Bismarck. The members of the Three Emperors' League were Austria, Germany, and Russia. The Congress of Berlin drove a wedge between Russia and the other two members. Germany formed the Dual Alliance with Austria in 1879 to protect one another from possible Russian aggression. The treaty remained in effect even after Russia requested a renewal of the Three Emperors' League in 1881. "The Dreikaiserbund [Three Emperors' League] never did recover from the Eastern crisis while Disraeli was in office, and its later revival after Gladstone put *Beaconsfieldism' into reverse took a different and less stable form." from THE FOURTH PARTY AND CONSERVATIVE EVOLUTION, 1880-1885 by KEITH RICHMON OWEN, B.A., M.A. A DISSERTATION IN HISTORY Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in August, 2000 (p.25) Therefore, speaking about the post-2000 attempt of keeping Russia "out" of Europe, by encroaching on it with NATO expansion might well not be a "mistake" as stated by David T. Pyne, but a geopolitical strategy, and it has a long history. It it were a mere "mistake", it would be amazingly recurring: - attempts to break up the Three Kaiser League (by London) 1879 - attempts to break up Treaty of Bjorko (by London) 1905 - Versailles (Limitrophe States as a barrier in Eurasia, by London in conjunction with Washington DC) - The quasi inofficial "declaration" of the Cold War (Churchill/"Iron Curtain" speech), 1946 - Truman Doctrine (by Washington DC), 1947 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." [editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things] From wiki: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the (Washington DC) administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[20]" Or as the old insider joke went: NATO's function was "to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out." (Lord Ismay) Whether these are real "mistakes" (sic.) or a concerted strategy lurks behind as ulterior motive, remains hidden.
    15
  37. Short answer: 1) globalism 2) imperialist techniques and strategies
    14
  38. Not only the Ukraine, and not only currently. The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) 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 outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent. Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history. Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Different Empires. Different era. Same games... ------------------------------------- The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the foot of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent. Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers... Divide and Rule. The LINK of the WORLD. Oldest trick in the book... Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games. -------------------------------------- The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, 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. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours. Forget nukes. The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet. Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war... Insert levers of lies, mistrust. Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. Then point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side". 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." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet. And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Namebranding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences. America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relations" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist 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) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket for the modus operandi. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games. --------------------------------------- The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script for the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide. Who wields the POWER? Who has had 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? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances... The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."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 individual 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.
    14
  39.  @JJRM8  Which lies do you swallow. Or...who pays you?
    14
  40. The pier is for bringing in construction materials for the corporations. The infrastructure for the exploitation of the offshore gasfields, and beachfront condos. Read Smedley-Butler. The 'techniques' have never changed.
    14
  41. The people of the Africa 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance. Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Africa and the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent. Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust... Create favorites: favoratism... Point the finger, everywhere else... Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in Africa and the ME) 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-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
    14
  42. If one understands what happened to China during their "Century of Humiliation," means that one then already has the template to understand what is happening today. One can use the historical "template" and apply it in the same manner. What happened to China during that era, is how "divide and rule" worked in the past, and still works today. Create or deepen a political problem, and then wait for the little minions benefiting from the outside POWER of imperialism to come asking for "help." Use their "plight" (artificially enhanced) to meddle, or "leverage" (power dynamics) crises into "eternal problems," sit by and do nothing as problems foment into violence, revolutions, and wars, or carry out other forms of privatized interference (corporatism) under government protection, or without. Whatever works, details really REALLY DON'T MATTER. Once "fomented troubles" rise out of hand, claim to "just want peace." Then use the little minions as favourites (favouritism = a technique within the "divide and rule" strategy of power) to destabilize an entire region, steer them against other weaker entities, and/or employ them as instruments of power (the "tools" of power dynamics), or create overseas regions as a staging area far from the home base (the "unsinkable aircraft carriers"/like colonial-era Hong Kong), etc. Whatever works for the desired region to be divided/conquered or where CONTROL and domination is required for the economic systems of gain. There is no way that current day Chinese leaders will not have learnt their very own historical lesson, and allow their very own history to repeat/rhyme, and allow such outside meddling in the own systems to gain traction, AGAIN for a second time. Every nation or state has its own "Never again!" European citizens today are still suffering from the hegemonial ambitions of some of their leaders, teaming up with Washington DC/the Pentagon. These citizens, usually around 50% of entire populations, suffer directly ("heating or eating"), or indirectly (soaring inflation), these are all "effects," not to be confused with "causes" (see concept of retro causality, one of the most easily misused ways to skew a timeline of events). Some eventually even end up in the muddy trenches. Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or Mackinder before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their (temporary) GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER. With re. to how tools are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..." Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves. Note also, that a "plan" and the strategy to effect the plan, are two different things. Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as the USA implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combatted by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today, and there is MORE than sufficient evidence for this. Outsiders intent on playing the game, use the revolutionary spirit, in order to hop onto useful dissent, strengthen it, and insert levers which they can pry open to gain own advantages. Beijing is certainly 100% aware of this, so everything you are witnessing today is a political EFFECT, not a political "cause" as some leaders wish to mislead us towards. Everything you are being told about Berlin, in stages after 1894, 1904, 1907, and 1912, with gathering momentum, were EFFECTS, not CAUSES. That was, based on observation, outside powers with the intention to "divide and rule" Europe, by encroaching/encircling the major continental power, which has never changed throughout recent modern history. The ONLY factor which changed over the last few centuries, was the "major continental power" which had to be CONTROLLED by the outside power who wanted a competitive advantage. The historical parallel, is the "Chinese Century of Shame"-historicity, and is well-known at least to the 1.4 billion inhabitants of China today. Certainly, they also do not wish to become "carved up" and ruled over by outsiders again, for a second time. The template therefore predicts a similar outcome, that of the more encroachment/encirclement, the more likeliness of the "breakout attempt" in some possible future. Obvious solution for a more stable world, stop the encroachment/encirclement. Both historically (post-1900) as well as our recent history (post-2000) there seems little incentive for those with the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to do so, but rather the repeated attempts to search for tools to do such encroachment/encirclement FOR the outside power/s intent on gain. Empires do not become dominant because they hand out candy and bouquets of flowers, as most realists are fully aware of, therefore the wise advice to always keep a just/wise "balance of powers. If not, fail. Power flows to where the attention goes first, in geopolitics, in the form of political policies. These can be studied by looking at the events themselves, not what another human being tells you (incl. this essay, which doesn't tell you anything, but implores you to start focusing on the well-known events themselves, from which one can then infer the underlying hidden policies, strategies, or objectives). If you live in East Asia, beware of the "dividers". The hawks will come looking for "buck catchers" and the doves will disguise it as the "helping friends"-narrative = i.e. the template of modern western imperialism. Hawks and doves working in close unison, although stated as being opposite poles. They WILL come to you, same way as they came to the Ukraine, following the 1990s.
    14
  43. "Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused," as stated as desirable by Woodrow Wilson, one of the world's biggest advocates of imperialism/white supremacy, whilst hiding behind a "an image" of being a liberal/idealist/progressive (taken from a unpublished paper of 1907, as quoted in The Rising American Empire, 1960, by Richard Warner Van Alstyne, p. 201.) Wilson of course was simply looking at what had happened the past 200 years as the original "13 colonies", first fought for independence, and then started going N.E.W.S. (North/East/West/South), brushing away all in its path. They wouldn't stop going, until they bumped up against European imperialism, their biggest rivals. "During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed." Such statements were taken from a series of Washington DC "strategy papers". To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this." (taken from, in parts: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive Diplomático y escritor)
    14
  44. Cooperation between human systems is by nature chaotic, because human nature is complex but at least somewhat predictable. When the dividers came to Britain with the Roman Empire, it did not matter to the dividers why some local Brits cooperated with the empire, to divide and overpower or destroy the local systems of power, or how divided Brits already were before Rome arrived, which local Brit collaborator got what and how much for cooperation with the empire: what is important, is that enough cooperated for Rome to overpower Britain. POWERS have always done it. "Divide" the opposition any way possible. If you have trouble imagining how "division" works, then imagine a wall from which single bricks are extracted one after the other, by POWER or allure (usually money), until the wall gets fragile or even collapses. The group that can divide all others groups, and avoid them from uniting into larger entities, will rule over all the others. It is not complicated, never mind what any dissenters wish to inform you of, or all that so-called news filling your screen with 99% ancillary details every day. Formula in any divide-and-rule strategy, carried out as premeditated aim or instinctively, and regardless of the tier of power. Maximum unity for "us" (ingroup doing the division). Maximum division for all others (outgroups to be divided for gain). A typical position of an apologist, once the apologist for immoral actions realizes an objectively correct observation provable by looking at primary sources like maps, can no longer be denied, is to engage in "bothsidesisms" or the claim that "both sides were doing the same thing." No, incorrect. Because only ONE "side" had the geographical advantage to actually implement the encirclement of the other. For the American Century after the year 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger chunk of land than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": the technique used was the same. For the "divider" the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in order to achieve the useful division for the higher power, are not important. When the dividers came to Europe with the fledgling American Century, it did not matter to the dividers why some local Europeans cooperated with the empire, to divide and overpower or destroy the local systems of power, or how divided Europeans already were before Washington DC appeared on scene in ever-increasing perpetuity after 1900, which local European collaborator got what and how much for cooperation with the empire: what is important, is that enough cooperated for Washington DC to subject Europe. These are the 99% ancillary details of history. It doesn't matter how division is implemented, or how existing divides are deepened, or who aids for whatever reasons, or whether those aiding and abetting division are even aware that they are aiding division: what matters is that it is implemented. For the divider it is not important why the tools cooperate, but the fact that the tools cooperate in creating division in overpowering a chunk of the planet somewhere. Why and that are different premises... The empire in search of systemic expansion does not care about the "why". The trick is that the mass media, and our leaders advocating the spread of their ideology, have deceived you into thinking "territorial expansion = bad", whilst at the same time, the same people who "point fingers" (aka the "blame game") cheer for systemic expansion. Both are cycles of lies leading to wars, and wars leading to lies, and then lies leading to wars again.
    13
  45. Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible. It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"... Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country? Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting. Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this: - You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections. - You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media. - You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual. - You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way. - You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference. Here is what you can do, easily: 1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours) 2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed 3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
    13
  46. To foster resentment is a strategy of divide-and-rule, since the "resentment" of division and war can be milked by the USA/collective West for generations to come.
    13
  47. You don't have to study thousands of books and watch endless debates on the topic "How US foreign policy works." Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it. Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism. The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism. The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and using friends, and is hiding behind the mainstream stories of hubris and jingoism... It means to AVOID the unity of all others, any which way. The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia. The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule. Systemic/ideological expansion into: - Eastern Europe. - Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route) - Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route) Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. The imperialists and their apologist even chant the same slogans today, and still use the same strategies of expansion as they did 500, 200 and 100 years ago, but are too ignorant and indifferent to either know or care. As always, the warning voices of the sane halves are ignored, downplayed, "finger pointed" at as "unpatriotic," or as being "in bed with the enemy", and many other forms of equally "rhyming history." It is what they spend billions on every year to obfuscate reality, so their empires can keep on marching marching marching marching to the jolly tunes... The systems and corporations came in droves for SYSTEMIC EXPANSION and all they ever wanted was peace...peace...PEACE....PIECE... A little piece land with own laws over here for a little American/NATO base. A nice little piece of capital over there, of the Nordstream project. A piece of the Panama Canal ...just "wanted back" mind you. A tiny sliver of those Ukrainian/Caucasian raw materials. A nice little chunk of real estate, in the Levant Just a little little bit of a percentage of political influence EVERYwhere. And, let's not forget, ALL of Greenland... ALL of it... The meddling created by the own proactive divide-and-rule strategy of power then results in effects: Imperialistic meddling is always a CAUSE to which there will be a resulting EFFECT.
    12
  48. There is a fracture zone between the big global players (USA/EU, Russia, China) running from the North Pole, through the Baltic States, Poland and Ukraine, via the Caucasus, Iran, and towards Israel. Another fracture zone is the MENA region (Middle East and North Africa), from there through India, SE Asia (incl. Vietnam), through Taiwan, the Koreas, Japan, Taiwan, back up to the North Pole. Expect Washington DC, either in collaboration with a NATO state, or tacidly nodded off by the EU, to instigate crises and wars EVERYWHERE on these "fracture zones," because it is the only way they can hang on the the good ol' days a bit longer: their role of the hegemon of the world, and that of the American Century.
    12
  49.  @louise_rose  Correct. Agreed 100%. And now, the next in line is Georgia. As pre-2014 for the Ukraine, the people of Georgia are overwhelmingly unaware of how they are being set up, and how their emotions are being misused. I¡m happy to spot comments like yours, making it clear that larger portions of the planet are finally "waking up" (even though I personally don't actually like that term 🙂) Cheers. and keep on spreading the word.
    12
  50. NED
    12
  51. In all of this, the USA was not the "innocent anti-imperialist" bystander, as often mistakenly assumed based on the statements made by some or other US leaders. After the Truman Doctrine had divided Europe, Washington DC intended to enable the totally destroyed and waning Europeans to extend themselves trying to hang on to their empires. It was a US strategy. regardless of what some or other US leaders or historians might claim: "During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed." SOURCE: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive US strategist in these think tanks lay out the scheme of what was going to be the new post-war reality, as a "Grand Area" as an almost exclusive "back yard", and under their "natural rights" for the USA to control. Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The more industrial countries were to be guided as "great workshops". Those who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (would now be working under US supervision and finance). More, undeveloped regions were to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial centers, as a memo put it. They were to be "exploited" for the reconstruction of Europe (The references are to South America and Africa, but the points are general.) To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this." Note, all words in quotes were actual words used IN THIS OFFICIAL US DOCUMENT, and the thesis and its quoted sources can all be downloaded for free, from the www, and using these key words provided for your search engine.
    11
  52.  @Niagaradream  If somebody asks me I usually recommend Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding the geopolitics of Eurasia, then W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. With regards to how imperialism/militarism implements the aforementioned, one can read the classic War is a Racket, by Smedley-Butler. Stand alone suggestions regarding strategies of power are other classics like Machiavelli/The Prince, Sun Tzu/Art of War, or Clausewitz/On War. What I wrote in the OP is a part of this "blend" of strategies. One can add Robert Green/48 Rules of Power to the mix, and from there it isn't far to figure out how the powers implement divide-and-rule on multiple tiers: from domestic politics, and societies, in corporations, within local municipal councils, etc., etc., all the way through to international relations. In case you prefer podcasts you can also search for these in YT since there are several channels which either read, or elaborate these books. Regarding divide-and-rule: It inverts a lot of the logic of what is generally considered "popular/narrative history" (or "what everybody believes" and "as seen on TV") and with regards to what we are being told are the reasons for crises and wars. cheers
    11
  53. The winds of change are blowing towards China, and the periphery... "In 2010, China was South Africa's largest trading partner.[2] Since 2007 China-South African relations have become increasingly close with increasing trade, policy and political ties.[3][4] In the 2010 Beijing Declaration, South Africa was upgraded to the diplomatic status of Strategic Comprehensive Partner by the Chinese government.[5]" (wiki) A hint with regards to how Washington DC is going to "manage" that (see below essay): "As Robinson points out: Transferring political intervention from the covert to the overt realm does not change its character, but it does make it easier for policymakers to build domestic and international support for this intervention. This is the trump card of democracy promotion, it diffuses opposition to Northern intervention. Advisor to the State Department and academic, Wiarda, clearly sums up: A US stance in favor of democracy helps get the Congress, the bureaucracy, the media, the public, and elite opinion to back US policy. It helps ameliorate the domestic debate, disarms critics (who could be against democracy?) … The democracy agenda enables us, additionally, to merge and fudge over some issues that would otherwise be troublesome. It helps bridge the gap between our fundamental geopolitical and strategic interests … and our need to clothe those security concerns in moralistic language … The democracy agenda, in short, is a kind of legitimacy cover for our more basic strategic objectives." (Source: Third World Quarterly, Vol 21, No 5, pp 815– 830, 2000; Aiding democracy? Donors and civil society in South Africa by JULIE HEARN) That's what happens in imperfect systems. Ever so slight imperfections and divisions will be exploited, and the lever of discontent inserted into the slightests cracks... They will use the "democracy argument", to actually undermine democracy. What starts off with a good idea in theory (democracy), the political hawks will come along and turn it into a weapon... "Everything government touches turns to crap." - Ringo Starr
    11
  54.  @roblind102  Desperation. Declining empires are very very dangerous.
    11
  55.  @louise_rose  That is an old Roman-era technique of power to "morph" local systems into becoming tools for the dividing power, which is Washington DC.
    11
  56. ​ @johnsmith1474  All of these countries are in between the "tectonic plates" of empires, in danger of being "burnt" as proxies.
    10
  57.  @deansawich6250  Thank you for the book tip. It's been on my bucket list for a while and I hope to get around to it soon.
    10
  58. Excellent panel. Good luck with the project. ✌️👊
    10
  59. You don't have to study thousands of books and watch endless debates on the topic "How US foreign policy works." Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it. Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism. The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism. The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and using friends, and is hiding behind the mainstream stories of hubris and jingoism... It means to AVOID the unity of all others, any which way. The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia. The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule. Systemic/ideological expansion into: - Eastern Europe. - Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route) - Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route) Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. The imperialists and their apologist even chant the same slogans today, and still use the same strategies of expansion as they did 500, 200 and 100 years ago, but are too ignorant and indifferent to either know or care. As always, the warning voices of the sane halves are ignored, downplayed, "finger pointed" at as "unpatriotic," or as being "in bed with the enemy", and many other forms of equally "rhyming history." It is what they spend billions on every year so their empires can keep on marching marching marching marching to the jolly tunes. The systems and corporations came in droves for SYSTEMIC EXPANSION and all they ever wanted was peace...peace...PEACE....PIECE... A little piece land with own laws over here for a little American/NATO base. A nice little piece of capital over there, of the Nordstream project. A piece of the Panama Canal ...just "wanted back" mind you. A tiny sliver of those Ukrainian/Caucasian raw materials. A nice little chunk of real estate, in the Levant Just a little little bit of a percentage of political influence EVERYwhere. And, let's not forget, ALL of Greenland... ALL of it... The meddling created by the own proactive divide-and-rule strategy of power then results in effects: Imperialistic meddling is always a CAUSE to which there will be a resulting EFFECT.
    10
  60. The "divide and rule"-strategy or technique has a pretty long history in the Levant, which had been a desirable crossroads of civilizations ever since ancient times (land route connecting continents/systems) with changing POWERS implementing the strategy as time passed. If one wishes to understand history, one first has to familiarize oneself with strategies of power. If not, one WILL get misguided, distracted, and fooled into cheering for "imperialism", even whilst thinking one is cheering for "freedom and democracy", or something else. Note that in order to play the game of "divide and rule", it needs a geographical/physical advantage, and POWER. No POWER, no games... In a more worldly sense. As far as systems and strategies are concerned. The 15 million people initially injected as "anchor state" (strategy) into the Levant, by an empire after WW1, are not going to rule/dominate the Levant. Such a small number is always a "tail", and not the "dog". The tail (lesser power) does NOT wag the dog (greater power). That is just an easily chanted slogan, created by the dividers, in search of scapegoats for the slogan chanters/banner wavers. It is a myth and a tool of deception and misdirection, by those who truly wish to rule by division. The ruling class. The elites, or the "1%-ters", the "$uperhubs", or whatever one wishes to call such a headless mass, united by their interests (§§§footnote). In the real world, it is the "dogs" of POWER, who "wag the tails". Modern Israel is a tool, once created by an Empire for a specific purpose, just like every other ME country was created for a purpose. The sooner ALL these divided Semites in the Levant realize this, the better it will be for ALL Semites. They are ALL tools. As a guideline how the "divide and rule"-strategy can be defeated, the first tentative examples of African leaders finally realizing the POWER of the "divide and rule"-technique is out there. This technique, same as 100 and 200 and 2,000 years ago uses a multitude of "carrots and sticks": the outside POWER mis/uses differences in race, religion, ethnicity, and uses the appeals to the leaders here in the form of "greed", personal advantages, or promises, or using the "shame game", etc. Whatever works in the desired area in which "disunity" is the goal. The example of African leaders standing united, and repulsing such outside attempts, can be studied. The initial positive observation, is not final though: the "dividers" will return. They will come back, and push, and push, and push until the first weakness appears, which will then be exploited... "Divide and rule" is in politics and international relations, what nukes are in warfare. AGE OF EUROPEAN IMPERIALISM Israel, the artificial entity, had never been created by a god, never mind what the idealogues proclaim. In antiquity it was created by strategists, employing amongst other strategies, the "divide and rule"-technique to inch forward towards the "milk and honey"-land belonging to others already living there, while being the favorites of a god in an ideology. Thousands of years later during WW1 it was recreated by a very worldly empire, Great Britain, employing the "divide and rule"-technique. The goals and aims of this empire, acting in conjunction with France, tacidly nodded of by Washington DC, were very earthly: to rule, and keep the POWER it had amassed as a result of a previous lucky GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE vis-a-vis its European neighbors. For the British Empire starting around 1917: to use mass-immigration as a tool of division as they did all over their empire. Lines were drawn, and rulers imposed onto the people living here, who were never asked as a collective. Whether it was the White Highlands (Kenya) or Palestine, these white immigrants brandished their newly found power (as the favorites of an empire). In other cases (Fiji, for example) mass-immigration of other subjects were used to cause disruption within the original indigenous power structures. This power of the hegemony was transformed into pieces of paper (deeds) granting CHOSEN FAVORITES property in a promised land, and these new favorites/best friends in the form of mass-immigration would then, in return, protect the British Empire's interests. In the Levant, it was the very precious Suez Canal from the threat of potential attacks by land armies, from the north...because the British Empire did as it always did. Create useful tools in a "barrier state" (strategy), for its own perceived potential future gain. That of the automatic ally (strategy). If the Levant was attacked by a northern empire on the way to Egypt/Suez as per Heartland Theory (1904), via land routes where the mighty Royal Navy was useless, the "poor little friends" which had previously been strategically set up as homelands/states, would be defended. Of course, because the Empire cared so much about "poor people"... The motivations for empires in the beginnings at this watershed of history for the Levant (1917) can be linked to the motivations for empires today. TODAY Whatever the outcome in Israel/Gaza in our immediate future might be, the dividers in Washington DC have already achieved their aim. The last "gift" these dividers in Washington DC gave their favorites, was East Jerusalem (Trump admin), simply handed over without asking the people who actually lived here what they wanted for themselves. Eurasia is divided into multiple "teams", all arguing with each other and pointing fingers, playing the blame game, unable to unite into greater powers. Today: The sooner ALL these "divided" people realize this, the better it will be for ALL the people. War is a great divider. Such divisions last generations. "Divide and rule" extends into each and every mind. Line-drawing does not only take place on maps, but it also goes straight though your Limbic system (brain/appeal to emotion) and from there straight through entire societies. THE DAWN OF MODERN CIVILIZATIONS In the Bible, the original divider of mankind in the Levant, was the figure God (Old Testament). Whether one believes in this god or not, doesn't matter. In a systemic analysis, Jesus the philosopher (New Testament) actually OPPOSED his (so-called) father's form of authoritarian and often brutal rule (Old Testament). In antiquity, the figure God had used the "divide and rule"-strategy on and over the rest of mankind in the Levant. From the position of ultimate POWER, God had chosen favorites, and throughout the Old Testament (as a historical series of events) continued to make rulings and grant miracles in the favor of his chosen. Yikes, God even nuked Sodom and Gomorrha in order to make living space for his chosen (lol, just kidding). On a sideline, also the invention of propaganda: These inhabitants were the collective "evil outgroup", who also collectively "deserved to die". Whatever... Further indicators: God favored "ruler types" (Old Testament/top down rule) like Moses. No doubt, in a realist analysis, strategists like Moses were most likely the inventor of the SINGLE HEGEMONY as a SOLE God with the all seeing eye, to create unity. To avoid people from creating a miriad of depictions and minor gods, and get constantly distracted by a plethora of personal favorite foreign gods in the lands they were dispered into, and who would end up dancing around idols... Poor Moses must have been frustrated by his followers' insatiable appetite for entertainment, divisive squabbles, tribal infighting, family fueds, and other distractions from the endsieg: the land of milk and honey they all dreamed of as settler colonists on the move. THE ROMAN EMPIRE According to the legacy, Jesus approached commoners (New Testament/bottom up unity). The polar opposite of God of the Old Testament (see above). Around the year "0", The Roman Empire had the POWER in the Med, and it had amassed this power as a result of a previous lucky GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE vis-a-vis its neighbors in the Mediterranean. A technological and organisational edge gave it that slight advantage of reach: While it could "reach" all neighbors in the Med, these neighbors could not "reach" Rome, at least for the time being. That would change later as the balance of power shifted. Around the year 0, one can consider Jesus as the "prototype Hippy" teaching love and charity, in other words the Monty Python take on the observed events, or one can see him as a talented strategist who intended to take on the might of the Roman Empire. Actual evidence then favors a combination of both (the "peaceful revolution" against the Roman Empire): crimes against the state, like sedition, were usually punished by crucifiction. The irony of the Roman Empire killing Jesus, is that they later took the resulting religion as a state religion, in efforts to bring unity to the crumbling empire, by replacing a miriad of gods and resorting to the "one god" as single hegemony over all (state religion). The intention to use an ideology to create unity was too little, too late to save a crumbling empire... Whether such events mentioned on clay tablets, or scrolls, were actual events, or inventions by philosophers to explain strategies, or simply true at some core and then added onto as the ages passed, to become the well-honed stories we read today, is not even important in any systemic analysis. As I always say, historians and politicians can hardly agree on what happened last week, let alone 2,000 years ago, or 4,000 years ago. Therefore, best to reduce everything to the tier of "systems/strategies" in order to discover what really happened. THE END
    10
  61. Saying that this war started on Oct 7th, is like saying the war in the Ukraine started in 2022...
    10
  62.  @MdeKok-gv7wg  Bismarck: "The secret of success? Make a good treaty with Russia." The guy had a knack for not wasting words.
    10
  63. 1:05 Keyword "Regime change". WW1 was the biggest US "regime change operation" in history. "If the Allies at the peace table at Versailles had allowed a Hohenzollern, a Wittelsbach and a Habsburg to return to their thrones, there would have been no Hitler." Winston Churchill, 26th April 1946 That short statement practically has "regime change" written all over it. That short statement also makes it clear what happens if one removes the gatekeepers (monarchy) of a political system from power, which then opens the door for all kinds of ideologues. They thought they could throw out the monarchs, and morph Germany into becoming "more like us" (old Roman technique of power), and there would be no consequences. Whatever they thought, one thing is clear: US think tanks who wrote the 14 Points Speech KNEW they were far enough away from Europe not to have to face any consequences should their own suggestions combined with the invariably following top-down implementations result in blowback (causality). So what had led Churchill to make such a statement? As part of the 14-Point Plan, Wilson demanded that Germany de-throne Wilhelm II, before any peace talks could begin. The Allies also refused a German delegation as part of the peace talks in 1919. WW1 was the USA's hitherto biggest "regime change operation" (Germany). Because here is what they tell you is history in thousands and thousands of books and docs: the "German people" or "German leaders" were the ones who "forced Wilhelm II into exile, or " forced the autocrats to abdicate because they were angry" or variations of that. Here is what they (usually) don't say (lie by omission): That it was the own side which had previously coerced other German leaders like Max von Baden into forcing the German government out of office, because that was a condition for armistice negotiations to take place. Here is the timeline of events: 1) Coerce German leaders to topple the current Berlin government. 2) German leaders realizing there was no alternative to stop the war, topple the current government. 3) Omit step 1) for the "narrative of WW1", or pretend it never happened, and then "write history" that pleases the own feelings by simply pinning the flag on the timeline, saying that the history of that event started on "day x". In order to find out what really happened, an interested history fan would have to delve into very specific books that cover the entire series of events, to find out the details. But, who does that? From the primary source: "The President would deem himself lacking in candor did he not point out in the frankest possible terms the reason why extraordinary safeguards must be demanded. Significant and important as the constitutional changes seem to be which are spoken of by the German Foreign Secretary in his note of the 20th of October, it does not appear that the principle of a government responsible to the German people has yet been fully worked out or that any guarantees either exist or are in contemplation that the alterations of principle and of practice now partially agreed upon will be permanent. Moreover, it does not appear that the heart of the present difficulty has been reached. It may be that future wars have been brought under the control of the German people, but the present war has not been; and it is with the present war that we are dealing. It is evident that the German people have no means of commanding the acquiescence of the military authorities of the empire in the popular will; that the power of the King of Prussia to control the policy of the empire is unimpaired; that the determining initiative still remains with those who have hitherto been the masters of Germany. Feeling that the whole peace of the world depends now on plain speaking and straightforward action, the President deems it his duty to say, without any attempt to soften what may seem harsh words, that the nations of the world do not and cannot trust the word of those who have hitherto been the masters of German policy, and to point out once more that in concluding peace and attempting to undo the infinite injuries and injustices of this war the Government of the United States cannot deal with any but veritable representatives of the German people who have been assured of a genuine constitutional standing as the real rulers of Germany." Source: International Notes: Diplomatic Notes, Prepared By Allan Westcott, Ph. D., Instructor, U. S. Naval Academy, November 1918 Proceedings Vol. 44/11/189 Washington DC power mongers employ old Roman techniques of power, including the "morphing" of systems which favor the own ideological expansionist goals, and one of these old Roman techniques is divide-and-rule. In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Not only Germany was divided, but also Europe was divided with a ruling. This strategy is often misunderstood, in popular narratives composed mostly of "being friends" even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, so by 1945 the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover...
    9
  64. ​ @PerceivedREALITY999  Everything you wrote, and everything Chas explained, is part of a top-down divide-and-rule strategy of power. To the outside divider, it does not matter how divisions appear, since their only aim, is to avoid unity in a region.
    9
  65. Venezuela is just a pixel of the Big Picture. The marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s. Systemic/ideological expansion into. Eastern Europe. Balkans. Black Sea. Caucasus region. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. How old is this game called "marching empire"? Answer: Old, very old... For the "fighting for freedom and democracy"-crowd... In 1914 the Puerto Rican house of deputies voted unanimously for independence from the United States. Thereupon, the United States declared it unconstitutional. Wilson (Footnote) made Puerto Rican citizens of the United States without asking them and without their consent. Puerto Ricans thereafter had to buy everything from US-flagged shipping corporations, which made everything in Puerto Rico more expensive and made American shipping companies and trading companies rich: the price was paid by poor people in Puerto Rico, whose declared independence was RULED unfavourably by the "eternal freedumb and eternal democracy"-lovers. Later, the Jones–Shafroth Act of 1917, forced Puerto Ricans to join the US army via the detour of the "granted US citizenship." Note, this as not decided BY Puerto Rico's leaders, but FOR them. How convenient. You are forced into the trenches of a collectively racist USA ("Jim Crow"-style divide-and-rule system of domestic rule) taking away your freedom to live life in independence, but don't expect any great rewards apart from the muddy trench. Even today, Puerto Rico is still the "pool of cheap labor" for their stronger neighbour USA. "We cannot develop our own economy. In the old days we were drafted into your wars even when we had nothing against the people we were fighting! I want talk about the fact that Spain already granted us autonomy in 1897 which was the same relationship that Canada has with Britain but since we are not white, we don't count, and there are many more crimes the USA has done!"- Albizu Campos. The "Arminius" of the Caribbean. No, one cannot develop if one is in the shadow of an empire which constantly siphons off your most capable individuals ("brain drain"). Just like 2000 years ago when Arminius was trained to become "Roman" in order to aid the expansion of the Roman Empire, so was Campos. The strategy of using tools for systemic expansion is as old as civilizations. The "empire" uses such "morphed locals" (strategy of power) as tools to further the goals of the empire by giving them all kinds of benefits in return for going against the interests of their fellow inhabitants. A few like Campos however see the light, and turn against those who wish to downgrade them to a subservient status and role within the empire. After periods of great upheavals, often the results of the own US top-down imposition (wars, invasions, sanctions), many leave their homelands resulting in such brain drain, analogous to many Central- and South American countries which are similarly kept from economic prosperity by the wars the empire wages in these outer regions of the own core territories. The empire favours some, and sets these up against others: divide-and-rule. Exactly those people a region of the planet needs to prosper, leave the rimlands around the empire to go to the "empire" which created the poverty and duress in the first place. For reference, as exemplary: Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, New York, on Thursday, 20 June 2024 (available for free as PDF-file). Similar behaviour by other powers in their "backyards" is of course correctly criticized, but the own behaviour narrativized in flowery language. Of course these empires are either ALL wrong, or ALL right. How the apologist wriggles and writhes about trying to twist wrongs into "rights" simply exposes the various biases of the advocate. It's a subsection of divide-and-rule, to keep regions in the periphery "down" (in power) and "out" of the decision-making processes which affect them in geopolitical terms. All the talk about freedoms like "freedom of speech" etc, means nothing. The ONLY thing which counts is how powerful the opposition gets. If one is weak, one is allowed to whine ones ails on the soap box, but as soon as one gains in power and numbers, the "empire" shows its true face. Camps, t0rture centres, terror campaigns, terror bombing, drone wars, regime change ops, subversive warfare, smear campaigns, you name it, the empire uses it. Those who stand up to division and subjection, soon become "the enemy". In both cases (Arminius/Campos) the "trained tools" became turncoats and agitated against the empire, using their knowledge to good effect. Arminius, more successfully than Campos because the region (Central Europe) offered the means for an armed resistance (forested, excellent territory for guerrilla warfare and armed resistance), whereas the Caribbean (small isolated and CONTROLLABLE islands) which was under the boot of much stronger US/European powers, it was obviously not possible because this rimland (South-, Central America, Caribbean) was already divided, and ruled over. In both cases, the "empire" only understands the "language" it uses itself. Don't expect many Americans to care much. Their life is mostly/partly still good, based on keeping their periphery "down" and "out" of power. That is true even today. The "system" trains "finger pointers" to sneer and make fun of their weak neighbours, kept weak and in a state of permanent duress, and their well-paid MSM-talking-head-tools point the way... The "good life" and the "good ol' days" when they super-prospered and which they collectively long back to, was not coincidental, but planned. 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." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other with revolving "patterns of relationships" (aka divide-and-rule), then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet while these were still weak and recovering from the divisions created. From the 1950s thru 1980s the USA/collective West reigned supreme, decreasing in strides after that. Note, that this observation has nothing to do with the majority of American citizens who are just as good/bad as anybody else on the planet. The sane half of their society is powerless to implement changes, since the system is fixed in place (pyramidal structure of top-down power). I've spoken to many people from The Philippines, South Korea, Puerto Rico, and many other places who didn't have a CLUE about their true history, and how the "empire" they worship and still bow down to is actually the historical CAUSE of everything they are suffering at the moment (geopolitics/grand strategy). All they learn about in the curriculum is the "rah, rah 'merica freedom and democracy"-bs. but they are not taught where they fit into the BIG PICTURE as individuals, and as islands/peninsulas/regions on the map (geopolitics/grand strategy) which are either useful or useless in the heads of the strategists. Today: A new era IS arriving. Millions of global inhabitants are no longer dependent on their libraries, their TVs or their own politicians and leaders, and can find out what happened for themselves. In the BIG PICTURE of the marching route of the empire, Puerto Rico was simply a small stepping stone. Look at a map, of how this "marching route" went from the US East Coast with its "old money" and industries, via the Caribbean and Colombia (carved up on the map as "Panama", Panama Canal Zone, and Columbia) in order to secure US interests, and then this "marching route" continued across the Pacific, as similarly annexed/captured territories of Hawaii (previously independent), and ex-Spanish territories like the Philippines and Guam. From there, via the later McCollum Memorandum, it led straight to Pearl Harbor after their "old friend Japan" was dumped after WW1 (1922), left with nobody to ally with. The same "marching empire" big picture is also the strategic reality all over the world. Into the "the West", into South America, then into the Pacific, then into West Asia, into Africa, all causing resistance movements... and now (post 1990s) ...into Eurasia, never "satiated". Bismarck, about the rich being "satiated" before the populace is "fed up" with all the forever wars... For a slightly light-hearted approach to "countering the marching empire", search for "FBI uncovers Al-Qaeda plot to just sit back and enjoy collapse of USA" (The Onion). No, this is not a joke or satire, but an actual strategy of power. Just sit back and watch on while your enemy collapses on multiple tiers, all the while everybody is viciously pointing fingers at who is to blame. Literally choking on their own blame games, while their leaders fiddle about on the rooftops... Me: ROTFL, learnt ...NOTHING. In their effort to "extend" others, they are actually extending themselves, uniting all against them, and are too rich, proud, hectoring, squibbing, to realize. Footnote The Wilson admin used the multiple tier/multiple hurdle/multiple cut-off technique of power, and made Puerto Rican citizens of the United States without asking them and without their consent. This technique means that if "they" are not stopped here, some other tier will stop "them" on the next level.
    9
  66. Basically it's people in masses falling for "narratives" they've never spent much time investigating whether these narratives are contestable. Most people are far too busy with their daily lives, and distracted ("Bread and Circuses" systems). Most of our "acknowledged history" is simply a story we (ingroup) tell ourselves.
    9
  67. Duplicit standpoints as mentioned in the intro as being unprincipled and imoral, is an actual strategy of power as later analysed and euphemized by Robert Greene in such books as 48 Rules of Power. In the cases of might is right resulting in such unprincipled behaviour, it is Rule Nr. 12: "Use selective honesty and generosity to disarm your victim." By being selectively "generous/honest" and selectively "tough/duplicitous" the wielder of power introduces selective favoratism, a technique which is a signature move in divide and rule/conquer. "Might is right", means that the strongest side gets to decide and impose. It is in fact also a strategy to remain largely indifferent to moral values, resulting from a power imbalance in the "systems" in question. "Might" in one system does not have to care what another system considers fair, or right. "Right" is solely determined by the might of the wielder of power.
    9
  68. The question posed to Asians (mainly Chinese and Indians/citizens within these borders) remains the same as during the era of imperialism. The obfuscators and dividers will use the same techniques in reasoning as they use in politics: they will "hop around" on criteria, causing dissention in debates on the micro level (society), in the same way the power players "hop around" on entire countries/governments/capital cities/key politicians in geopolitics on the macro level... The technique of "divide and rule"... Hop over here, hop over there, whatever standpoint brings the own short-term advantage, because THE POWER has the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of not having to suffer consequences from it's own actions. The question posed to all Asians remains. Whether they can see that they are in the same positions they were in 200 and 300 years ago. The dividers come with "promises" which they mostly don't intend keeping, or offer "treaties" (in which these dividers themselves hold the geographical advantage of distance), make all kinds of excuses why the dividers don't keep their promises, or why the dividers don't suffer the same percentage of harmfull effects in times of crisis/war as the "chosen ones". These promises are very enticing to power players, and offer the prospect of glory and achievement to the side the promises are made to... Anthony Blinken making some Indians FEEL***(see footnote) very proud with repeated offers of NATO membership, just like previous US admins made such promises to the Ukriane, which no doubt made many Ukrainians FEEL very proud, and then the dividers with the geographical advantage, subsequently citing all kinds of "difficulties" why such "pwomises" then cannot be effected in a short timespan. Meanwhile, exposing the "Ukraine"/proxy to extreme danger as the feet were dragged and dragged and dragged... Of course, in the game called divide and rule, it is not the fact THAT it is a ridiculous offer, in view of recent events in the Ukraine exposing the danger of such folly, but rather the fact THAT such an offer is repeated. The fact THAT the offer is on the table, already causes mistrust/dissention amongst ASIAN neighbors. Of course, if India refuses, the divider (of Asia), Washington DC can simply go to China and "promise Taiwan" to Beijing (signed away) in return for a deal, to surround Russia. The potential for "divide and rule" rests on the side with the geographical advantage, as long as the targets for division do not unite, specifically with a comprehensive Asian security agreement. The question to Asians remains the same. What are they going to do to create a SINGLE HEGEMONY (alliance) in East Asia, in order to speak with a united voice, against the POWER of division. BRICS is not enough. Any other deal or treaty, or even the "UN's" laws and the "rules based order" cannot stand up to the POWER of divide and rule. It needs a comprehensive security agreement for all of those in the FRACTURE ZONE 4 (stretching from North Pole, via Japan, Taiwan, through Thailand, the Indian subcontinent, towards the Middle East). If no comprehensive security agreement is achieved, mutually beneficial for all, then simply wait for history to return ("rhyme")... Or are Indian leaders like... first they came for Russia, but I did not care because I was not Russian. Then they came for China, but I did not care because I was not Chinese, and even saw an advantage for myself (economy) if China got "carved up" and weakened... Indian leaders: It'll be great, if WE can CONTROL the WATER flowing into China, from Tibet...such tempting "offers" and promises... "Around 1900" repeating for Tibet. Finally though, if everything is burning, divided, in quagmire of revolution and war, and Asia the "new Middle East" (as unfolded after the 1882 British invasion, followed closely by "Sir Lawrance the divider of Arabs"-style Lordships), finger pointing, and harsh language in the neighboring state, then who will speak up for India when the dividers come for you? DESIRABLE OUTCOME in any divide and rule system: The dividers will subsequently have the "upper hand/higher ground" (leverage) of POWER for all future negotiations with the resulting "statelets". The secret towards more Indian "power" lies in the continued "power" of its neighbors, not these neighbors' weakness. * The appeal to emotion
    9
  69. Maybe he had a quick look at their history books, and figured out that being set up against a continental rival, to a point of war (1905) has long-term detrimental effects...
    9
  70. The necessity to balance power is a long-standing reality amongst political actors and strategists. The logic and reasoning fill a ton of books, journals, theses, and articles, elaborately exploring the theory, based on the necessity to create an equilibrium between the powers or suffer consequences for not abiding by such logic. The issue is not that this age-old proven logic has been written down, the issue is that one can make people believe that balancing power is fallacious, and make people believe that a few chosen "good guys" should hold the keys to a peaceful world as hegemony. A few examples are in a footnote. What the world, and specifically Europe, lacks is wise practical leaders. Phronesis which is wisdom in determining political standards, practical understanding, and sound judgment. It comes from the Latin phronēsis, from Greek phrónēsis, meaning "practical wisdom, prudence in government and public affairs". Around the year 1900, technology rapidly bridged distances as the planet shrunk due to new inventions, and the Spanish-American War showed what would happen to European empires when they became "sick men." These were the same words European powers used to mock their own neighbours in the "Old World", as they greedily carved out little chunks of the "sick man" Ottoman Empire for themselves, so they obviously knew what would happen to themselves when they weakened. Dog-eat-dog. Europeans are born losers as long as they remain divided, until they figure this out. Note here, a little detail most cannot see because of their compartmentalized brains: BOTH the Ukraine and Russia are in Europe, and Russia is also in Eurasia. The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures" (see the recent WH exchange). This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021). All under the narrative of the marching being "voluntary (state sovereignty) actions" by the new best fwiends... "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger Henry Kissinger stated Washington DC's policy for the American Century: "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests." That simply means empires don't have friends, and if your little nation is no longer useful, it'll be written off with a few thoughts and prayers. The hegemon will wiggle and slime their way from "victory" to victory, as long as everyone else does not unite. That is how the strategy of divide-and-rule works. Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it. Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism. The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism. The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and using friends, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism... It means to AVOID the unity of all others. 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 individual 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. Washington DC and "American interests" have already "won". See Nordstream: American corporations buying up the ruins, pivoting to Russia, and when the "peace" is reinstated in some future, a US corporation will own the infrastructure, siphon off profit as middleman, and Washington DC will CONTROL this future resource flow into Europe de facto and de jure... In a graphic depiction of systems the "divide-and-rule"-world under which division rules, is diametrically opposed to the logic of a balance of powers. -------------------------------------- Footnote: Nicholas Spykman: "...political equilibrium is neither a gift of the gods nor an inherently stable condition. It results from the active intervention of man, from the operation of political forces. States cannot afford to wait passively for the happy time when a miraculously achieved balance of power will bring peace and security. If they wish to survive, they must be willing to go to war to preserve a balance against the growing hegemonic power of the period." An American, perfectly explaining, in the "nutshell" why "WW1 and WW2" came about, and why Europeans are "divided eternal fools" until they figure this one out. John Mearsheimer: "...status quo powers are rarely found in world politics, because the international system creates powerful incentives for states to look for opportunities to gain power at the expense of rivals, and to take advantage of those situations when the benefits outweigh the costs." Trump America wants to gut the losers Ukraine, like Christmas turkey, because they failed in "extending Russia" and are now weak enough to become "corporate lunch" (see "blink blink Blinken" quote a few months ago about "lunchtime" and what happens if "you are not at the table"). Kenneth Waltz: "As nature abhors a vacuum, so international politics abhors unbalanced power." War is a great way to create "vacuums". Once war creates a vacuum, it can be "filled" (power). Hans Morgenthau: "The aspiration for power on the part of several nations, each trying either to maintain or overthrow the status quo, leads of necessity, to a configuration that is called the balance of power and to policies that aim at preserving it." It is those who practice DIVIDE AND RULE who abhor the status quo, and wish to change it. Christopher Layne: "Great powers balance against each other because structural constraints impel them to do so." Apart from these fairly modern examples, the logic that belies this realization is thousands of years old. No strategist in any of the capital cities can claim "I didn't know."
    9
  71. When Lord Ismay overtly stated what the role of NATO was, he was protecting a covert strategy of the naval powers (Atlanticist mentality). Keeping some "in", others "out", and potential rivals "down" is hooded language as description of the divide-and-rule strategy which London used on the continent while it had the political clout. After WW2 the USA took over the role of dividing Europe/Eurasia. The USA has already (sort of) proclaimed their B-B Line to which NATO intended to advance. The B-B Line was drawn from the Baltic to the Black Sea. See George Friedman/Stratfor, 2015. Only one thing remained was how to get the side encroached on and encircled, to "shoot first" so as to gain the "moral high ground" (vital for the "plebs", munching chips while enjoying their "Bread-and-Circuses"-existences).
    8
  72. The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself. This is the theory. According to the scientific process, these proclaimed "rules" must now be countered, by trying to find exceptions to these two rules. According to the concept of "meaning of words" all exceptions to the rules which have been proclaimed, must be questioned: does this war for which the foundation was lain, or the war which was instigated, not avoided, "false flagged" into being, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, lead to disunity in another region of the planet (another continent). The theory, as stated by the words used, is not interested in anything else. It can either be falsified or it cannot. ------------------------------------- "The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015 Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA. That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia). Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power. In a nutshell: Implement and fund delusional propaganda games. Nothing of substance, with the implemented events often the exact opposite of the the loudly proclaimed "values". In the background, keep other systems either down or out of the own systems of gain and luxury life, on ALL tiers, often by force, coercion, or at gunpoint, if it cannot be bought or corrupted, all accompanied by continuous flurry of words without meaning, spread by the exact systems which gain from keeping everything the way it is (a "divide and rule"-setup of the world). That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power). It is to create confusion, which can be exploited. The intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia (which incl. the ME), 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 desirable 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).
    8
  73. 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... 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-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? 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] America's allies and foes in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues. It is how divide and rule is implemented. Set up European and Eurasian nations against each other. The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Brzinzki (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
    8
  74. "(Eternal) war is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." - 1984 (see footnote). We in the West have allowed ourselves to be lied into this easily avoidable war (Ukraine), through our ignorance, and we are enslaved by the taxes we pay for these never-ending eternal wars. Because in the next war set up by the dividers of the world, from their assumed GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER, it does not matter "who is right" and it does not even matter "who is left," loosely quoting Churchill, but rather in what state the leftovers are going to be in. "The problem isn't a lack of money food water or land [edit: resources]. The problem is that you've given control of these things to a group of greedy psychopaths who care more about maintaining their own power than helping mankind [edit: corporations/globalists]." - Bill Hicks The people who pull your strings, can make you deny things that can be proven, by simple observation. ---------------------------------------------------------------- "If the USA gets a cold, the rest of the world gets the flu". GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS Honestly, what more is there to say? USA: "If I get a cold, the rest of the world is going to suffer worse." This must be the most pathetic acknowledgement of subjection I've read my entire life. If your global neighbor gets an economic "cold" and you can't simply send them a get well soon card and continue with your own life unaffected, you are already in an internationalist/globalist entanglement. If the USA votes, the rest of the world looks on in awe and anticipation (2024). GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS Honestly, what more is there to say? USA: "If Americans vote an imperialist into office, the rest of the world is going to have to deal with it." This must be the most pathetic acknowledgement of subjection I've read my entire life. If your global neighbor votes in an imperialist and a convicted slimeball into office, and you can't simply send them an "oh what a pity"-look on your face and continue with your own life unaffected, safely assured because there is a GLOBAL BALANCE OF POWER, you are already in a globalist entanglement. Analysts should stop calling out strategies for what they are, and not claiming they are "mistakes." If you have a geographical advantage, you don't make "mistakes" or one isn't simply a "hypocrite" but one actually implements a strategy of power, which are old proven Roman strategies. These hypocrites face no disadvantages from being a hypocrite. It is a concerted effort of imperialism as practiced since ancient times, called divide and rule. The strategy can be proven, by observation. This is divide and rule. One squeezes out the alphas of another system, one slow step at a time. The March Route of the empire over time. When there is a response, blame the side being encroached upon, and use any action by the other side as excuse for further encroachment or escalation. Can be plotted on a map. Others take the disadvantages, leaving the side in the position of power to sweep in and gain advantages. The proxy, the age-old tool. Ukraine/2022: A war that was NOT AVOIDED for precisely this aim: 1) get others to fight and die, 2) keep Eurasia divided. What makes anybody think the USA wants to win in the Ukraine? It is not about winning but about division, and control. Control means the ability to siphon off enormous gains. According to the USA's long-term goals, there must be inequality in the world which favors the USA, and everybody else must bow down to the imperialist overlords of Washington DC when they come to "twist arms" (President Obama) to "do as we say." And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today. The peoples of Eurasia are still being turned against each other and then burned to ensure that this inequality remains. This is how "divide and rule/conquer" is implemented. "Never argue with fools. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ― Mark Twain. Me: "Never argue with imperialist/globalist tools. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with inexperience/naivety." Don't expect the greedy to EVER change. Those who wish to gobble up the lions share of the world's resources, in the divide and rule setup, and think they have a "right" to these riches... "The measure of intelligence is the ability to change." - Albert Einstein If one cannot acknowledge what happened in the past, one cannot intelligently change in the present. In order to save the future, we must first re-write the past. The key to a better future, is to undo the lies and misdirection of the past. Again, the point is clear. Or at least, it should be. Create a balance of powers on all tiers right up to the top tier, to balance these systems of greed out. You (personally) will be safest, if their pschopaths and tools of the outgroup, are balanced out by our (ingroup) pschopaths and tools. Our own psychos were never "better" than others, but simply had a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER which was employed to the own advantage. Balance these slimy systems out, because if not there will be consequences. This is not about history, because one cannot change the past: it is about learning lessons for the present. The lesson of history is clear: do not argue with all types of elitists, finger-waging fools, people who think "50% of the wealth" of the world must be theirs (then allow their "below IQ ranters" to make fun of the people their systems keep "down" in the divide and rule setup, and "out" of the reach of wealth), psychos and their apologists, and all other types of systemic "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbing, carniverous" (Thomas Jefferson about the tools of imperialism). Balance them out with an equal power. We'll see if the rising powers in East Asia, and Africa, are going to be wiser than Europeans while these "dividers" and their tools keep on turning up at their front doors, again and again. Europeans have already failed to balance power three times. 1) around 1900 2) just after WW1 3) around 2000 (footnote) "Allowing for the book, after all, being a parody, something like 1984 could actually happen. This is the direction the world is going in at the present time. In our world, there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. ... Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who’s helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever. The moral to be drawn from this dangerous nightmare situation is a simple one: don’t let it happen. It depends on you." - George Orwell
    8
  75. According to Washington DC, Ukrainian forces were supposed to have been "in Crimea by August (2023)," but as the saying goes, a plan is only as good as first contact with the enemy, and the Ukraine had simply overestimated its own capabilities.
    8
  76. ​ @larsnystrom6698  Yes, "permission" is as Obama said to "twist arms so people do as we say" as a strategy of power (American imperialism). You don't believe Obama said that? I suggest your favorite search search engine. Regardless of the context, it is what Washington DC "best friends" do to their weaker "friends".
    8
  77. Europe is divided as it was around the year 1900, and will therefore go down again as it did after the 1900.
    8
  78. The European poodles must bow down to their US master. Just like Japan did after it economically became far too successful during the 1970s and 1980s. The master expected the "poodle" to break its own climb to success, so Japan complied and voluntarily wrecked itself... This rhymed after the year 2000 in Europe. Washington DC does not like success elsewhere... As the strategy states: "Never outshine the master." (Robert Greene).
    8
  79. The picture is much bigger and much older. It can be studied as age-old history and propaganda against the outgroup. The systemic lies are known under "Black Legend". It means writing the history of a rival in a particularly devious way to highlight all the bad, whilst downplaying the good. Constantly hammer on the "other side bad" and repeat it again and again. The technique is age-old. For the own "his/story", the technique is exactly the opposite: highlight the good, and downplay or try to bury the bad, or paint it as actions of a few "bad apples"....
    8
  80.  @ricardolevy885  Now, up north, 300,000 are freezing due to extreme winter. Where do the resources go?
    8
  81. There are two axis crossing in the Pacific. One axis, as the "Old World Order" of post-WW2 goes from the USA/North America to Australia and New Zealand. A new axis is going from China/Asia to South America, see the Solomon Islands crisis last year. The two axis cross in the Pacific.
    7
  82. The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a "bark" by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War). Moscow was tacidly nodding off the observed reality, without too much interverence at this point in time, since gaining full spectrum domination in Eastern Europe was more important at the time. Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, they are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent. Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust... Create favorites: favoratism... Point the finger, everywhere else... Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... 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-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? §§§footnote The concept of the "straight out lie" is related to a variety of other terms within the spectrum of "political techniques," commonly defined as "strategic ambiguity;" and/or incl. such concepts as "lying by omitting," misdirection, misconstrued, spinning, framing, all either intentionally, or sometimes unintentionally.
    7
  83. It actually is already joined (de jure), but there are forces who wish to create de facto division, based on ideological stances, which would benefit the "dividers". That's how divide-and-rule works, and is visibly implemented.
    7
  84. It's called divide-and- rule. It's intentional.
    7
  85. How geopolitics links the wars in the Ukraine and Palestine. The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) 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 outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent. Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history. Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting? Different Empires. Different era. Same games... ------------------------------------- The people of Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent. Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers... Divide-and-rule. Oldest trick in the book... Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games. -------------------------------------- The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours. Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER. Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war... Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side". 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." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet. And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences. America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist 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) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism. Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games. THE LINK OF THE WORLD. The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide. Who wields the POWER? Who has had 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? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances... The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."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 individual 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.
    7
  86. Ahhh...the keyboard warriors enjoying their "victories" whilst their empires instigate crises and wars all over the world. We see them, by the words that they use, and the actions they support.
    7
  87. ​​ @thinkbeforeyoutype7106  Agreed 100%. Take your argument a step further. It's a divide-and-rule setup of the globe, which knows only 2 "sides". "With the divider and their proxies", or "against the divider and their proxies." From that, flows all the terminology. rgds 👍
    7
  88. "Do we meddle in other countries?" Woolsley: "Yum, yum, yum... only for good causes though..."
    7
  89. The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. 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... 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-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
    7
  90. I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become" or my personal favorite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the lead-up to their declaration of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war"). Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power, in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states with a GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER. Humdeedum some time passes. By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION, and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1... That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around. Whatever... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regardless of what some "experts" proclaim, the logic of the "bomber will always get through" of the 1930s, is repeated today, and these various types of nukes will always get through in sufficient amounts to wipe any power off the map. Even if it survives as state or country, it will no longer be a world power. All it needs is sufficient numbers of MIRVs in order to sacrifice some (incl. duds to attract/distract/overwhelm the air defense), so that the mass of the rest will reach their intended targets. So the "experts" tell you their Patriots will stop them. These Patriots and other missiles and air defense systems can be overcome by implementing a very simple programmable and unjam-able multiple-layered enertia-guided and therefore unstoppable attack, as first-strike, and the first incoming Russian nukes, stationed just 15 minutes flight-time away, will act as multiple air burst to wipe out any attempt to intercept them in the radius of 100 miles, and the following strikes in their wake a minute later will mostly get through. Unlike 50, 100, 0r 200 years ago there WILL be a price to pay for pushing, pushing and pushing, until something snaps. For WHEN it "snaps" it won't be like last time with victory parades, and lotsa medals... Keep on poking the bear. Get the Ukraine to try and blind the Russian early-warning radar systems. Keep on "poking by proxy" and we will find out, because we are ruled over by idiots, imperialists, obfuscators, liars, deceivers and manipulators: not all of them, but enough to implement the divide and rule strategy of power. Keep on poking, and find out that we've always been ruled by chest-thumping fools and psychopaths all along: not all of them, but enough to implement age-old Roman-era strategies of power, intended to gain for a few as most others lose. Just don't for a minute think, the default "other side" doesn't know what our leaders are up to... Don't for a minute think that in the attempted twisting of observable reality to deceive oneself, that one can deceive others. Should the above unfold, it doesn't matter anymore how one chest-thumps around about how "superior" or "always right" one systemically always was while setting off on the MARCH ROUTE of the empire. It doesn't matter anymore if one lives in the EU or Northern Europe, going "but, but, I'm so innocent." It doesn't matter if one chants "trust our leaders, cos they know better cos cos we democracies and we never did anything wrong as the default setting..." It doesn't matter anymore about how the few survivors brag about "how many millions of Russians they also bagged". Then it doesn't matter anymore, because our myopic leaders will no longer be in a position to implement wrongs per "new Versailles" (currently planned in Switzerland for mid-June) and get away with it. Of course, they are going to insist on only negotiating with the true representatives of the peoples of Russia, who truly desire peace just like our own superior Western leaders who have only always wanted peace, cos they said so, and since that turned out so great last time around. The conference is of course a total waste of taxpayer money, just like Versailles was 100 years ago (1919). Before Moscow gets into that position of becoming carved up and used as a tool to encroach on the next in line, China, it will wipe the entire West off the map FIRST. China is not going to stand by without action, while Russia dissolves into single, smaller, easily influenced buck-catchers for the USA/collective West (imperialism, by "using" smaller nations to do the own bidding), because they know full-well they will be next to be carved up and divvied out. The USA/collective West no longer have a geographical position of power. The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbors, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed. Guess who will live longest in the "nuclear winter"-scenario? (theory)_ Short answer: NOT you (personally). Longer answer: The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names. During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand). The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction as it was around the year 1945. It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore. Because during the next war set up by the dividers of the world, from their assumed GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER, it does not matter "who is right" and it does not even matter "who is left," loosely quoting Churchill, but rather in what state the leftovers are going to be in. CONCLUSION: Today the default rivals/enemies to keep Eurasia divided and in a state of turmoil, are nuclear powers: they don't have to CARE what you (individual) think is "true" or is the "rule" whilst your empire is slowly creeping up on their borders and spheres of influence, or try to surround or encroach on them with old Roman era schemes, same as around 1900. If the USA/collective West is going to keep on encroaching, or trying to take over spheres of influence, you are going to get your sorry "50% wealth of the world is mine"-ass fried, and then it doesn't matter how many pushups you did that morning, or how beautiful you think your rich neighborhood looks, how lovely your boom boom tanks and airplanes are, or how much of the world's resources you think your systems have a right to CONTROL. The people who gain from an imperialistic setup they implement are overwhelmingly not going to die from the disasters growing out of the foundations they lay down. Throughout history, they've always managed to pay those who overwhelmingly don't gain, to sit in that muddy trench, for the gains of those at the tops of the pyramids.
    7
  91.  @Alexdorio-kc9yf  ?
    6
  92. PEARL HARBOR To goad the other side into "shooting first" is one of the oldest military strategies of power. Read the McCollum Memorandum. Washington DC knew perfectly well that their economic sanctions could and most likely would lead to a Japanese attack in the Asia-Pacific region, they just didn't think the IJN could reach any US territory of significance (Hawaii, US West Coast), without being spotted first.
    6
  93. The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, 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 Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900). Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors. Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule. Today, their leaders are too weak to unite. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", 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 friends 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 imperialist 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) regarding Eurasia. 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? 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 individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves. "Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams That is what empires have always done. Create the default rival/enemy. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances... The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.
    6
  94. "Cruise missile feminists." I have to remember that one...
    6
  95. Cancel "culture" if it is decided you are on the "wrong side" of the future BLACK LEGEND being written... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_legend "... when Spain's European rivals were seeking, by political and psychological means, to demonize the Spanish Empire, its people, and its culture, minimize Spanish discoveries and achievements, and counter its influence and power in world affairs." Spain can breathe a sigh of relief. They are on "the right side of history" now, and the line has moved eastwards, to China and Russia.
    6
  96. I've got my earphones in, doing some gardening... Multitasking 🙂
    6
  97. 25:30 These narratives of "evil other side" are written down as "Black Legend" and the same was then done to Spain, by her European neighbors who bunched up against her, envious of the plundered wealth from South- and Central America. In the end, it all comes back in a full circle.
    6
  98. Staging areas Definition: "In military uses, a staging area is a place where troops or equipment in transit are assembled or processed.[1] The US Department of Defense uses these definitions: (DOD) 1. Amphibious or airborne-A general locality between the mounting area and the objective of an amphibious or airborne expedition, through which the expedition or parts thereof pass after mounting, for refueling, regrouping of ships, and/or exercise, inspection, and redistribution of troops. (DOD) 2. Other movements-A general locality established for the concentration of troop units and transient personnel between movements over the lines of communications ...[2] Often and historically this military staging area has been termed a point d'appui ... Unlike normal bases, the facilities of a staging area are temporary, mainly because for a certain time it will hold much more troops and material than would be reasonable in peacetime. Militaries use staging areas to deploy military units, aircraft and warships plus their materiel ahead of an attack or invasion. In former times this used to be generally the border area of one's own country, but in recent wars (Gulf War, Kosovo War, Iraq War) it may also be the border area of another unrelated country granting access." (source: https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Staging_area) In the last part, the description is not entirely correct, since globally available staging areas are not a modern phenomena. In former times empires always employed such "direct or indirect" staging areas far away from the own heartlands as points on the axis of advance of their own empires. A "staging area" is not defined in extent: in the battlefield context of "battlefield tactics" it could be a town or field for the assembly of troops and vehicles, but in its largest form in grand strategy it can be entire countries or whole islands for massive armies, navies or air forces. The advantage of a staging area meant "no storming of beaches facing direct enemy fire", and probably the most famous example of such a staging area was the UK during World War 2, used for the gradual buildup of British and Empire forces, as well as the ordered arrival of allies like the US armed forces before D-Day in 1944: all in relative safety. If islands, such staging areas are often termed "unsinkable aircraft carriers". Staging areas are often refered to using colloquial expresions, or human body parts, in order to facilitate understanding of the concept: for example, Napoleon coined the term "pistol pointing at the heart of England" (heartland of the enemy) for Antwerp as jumping off point for a large invasion fleet, and therefore explains the reason why Belgium was created and given a permanent neutral status within a "concert" of nations, as a way to help avoid future wars by understanding the fears of another power, and addressing these fears in a decent manner. It is a part of military strategy, and since a large part of history of empires deals with military strategies, it is also necessary to delve into the subject matter, analyse historical events,in order not to become mislead or the "useful tool" in the propaganda campaigns of the present. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_strategies_and_concepts Staging areas will be found on the regions of the planet where states have interests, as the US DoD definition already alludes to by pointing out the Iraq War (staging areas = Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). They are often located in the fracture zones these empires create themselves, as cause/effect of the own policies. Once one understands the axis of advance of empires, or where these interests are, one also understands the strategies and other sides' counter-strategies and why some regions of the planet historically turned into war zones, others not, or some future regions might become war zones. When coupling the concepts of "staging areas" and the "axis of advance" of empires, it becomes clear why British and Free French forces landed on Madagascar in 1942, in order to prevent it from becoming a Japanese staging area, in case the Japanese Empire intended to expand into the Indian Ocean. Apart from the direct "colonies" or "overseas territories" there are also the staging areas offered by "friendly nation status" afforded by treaties: the "oldest alliance in the world" as Anglo-Portugese Alliance and based on treaties going back to 1294, stated that under any attack on British territory, that Portugal would "aid" (and vice-versa), and such a form of aid could be offering Portugal as "staging area" for the assembly of Empire forces in case of any attack by a third country, on Gibraltar. Why Stalin wanted the Limitrophe States (1939)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitrophe_states By removing a potential British staging area in case of his own communist expansion south (2nd Tournament of Shaddows) "triggered" a British Empire flank attack or an exposed flank, using a friendly power like Poland as a "staging area" had to be preventively removed or neutered. Of course, a strategist like Stalin would much rather have these countries as his own buffer zones. Such examples make it clear how creating such "staging areas" are a premier basis of expansion, whilst removing such possibilities from rivals are the other: the counter strategy, as recently wittnessed in the Solomon Islands (standoff between China and the USA and allies). The territories are again becoming vital in the "shaddow tournaments" (geopolitics), in view of BRICS expanding into South America, and any future potential military angle to BRICS is already being contested today (all therefore being preventive actions). See the comments regarding the "periphery of the world" below... It also becomes clear why simply creating a neutral country won't work in case the "axis of advance" of the empires are not also addressed via treaties or accords (non aggression pacts, etc.). In other words, it won't help simply creating a neutral country, if these neutral countries then simply offer the "shields" empires intend to advance behind, by setting up their staging areas behind such neutral states or "barrier zones". It will lead to tension in the "spiral model" of diplomacy. Taiwan, or Formosa has ahistory as a staging area for empires, in a strategic location off China. The only thing which changed was the hegemons. First for Japan after 1895, because it facilitated the Japanese Empire's advance into China and the Pacific, and today for the USA since US troops are already stationed here even though it is legally still a part of China (International Law). Regardless of emotions, laws are not buffets from which one can cherry pick "favorites" and discard "icky laws" one doesn't like: one either abides by laws, or one doesn't. The side "pushing until something snaps" is clear, as the USA wishes to build it up as a staging area for its own future interests. Ukraine, and "NATO encroachment" after 1999: Empires in advance are always looking for such potential staging areas, and here the recent Ukraine and Taiwan question (post 2000) point out which empires were "pushing" as their strategy, and which empires took a defensive stand. Empires in defense of own homelands would always choose war to avoid a peacetime setup of such a staging area (see War of 1812 as a preventive US attack on Canada as potential "staging area" for the British Empire as exemplary).
    6
  99. Yes, that but those who analyze have also concluded that the way the world is set up, people are simply too busy with their daily grind and problems to find out what is REALLY going on, so they fall in line because it is easy. Also psychology, as Glenn mentioned at 32:00 minutes) of simply wishing to fit in to what everybody else says, and not rock the boat by opposing the pervasive public opinion.
    6
  100. The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a "bark" by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War). Moscow was tacidly nodding off the observed reality, without too much interverence at this point in time, since gaining full spectrum domination in Eastern Europe was more important at the time. Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, they are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent. Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust... Create favorites: favoratism... Point the finger, everywhere else... Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... 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-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? §§§footnote The concept of the "straight out lie" is related to a variety of other terms within the spectrum of "political techniques," commonly defined as "strategic ambiguity;" and/or incl. such concepts as "lying by omitting," misdirection, misconstrued, spinning, framing, all either intentionally, or sometimes unintentionally.
    6
  101. LOL, yup..."denial" is the best propaganda.
    6
  102. Using the territories other people live as battlefields and testing grounds for new weapons is as old as mankind. To let others (an outgroup) suffer in order to gain for the ingroup, is one of the oldest strategies of power systems.
    6
  103. The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, 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 Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900). Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors. Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule. Today, their leaders are too weak to unite. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", 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 friends 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 imperialist 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) regarding Eurasia. 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? 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 individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves. "Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams That is what empires have always done. Create the default rival/enemy. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances... The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.
    6
  104. Very well stated analysis. To which I might add that we are in reality "ruled over", by said elites who call the shots, because these people who pay, pull the strings in the backgrounds of both the USA and the EU, mostly using the means of financial incentives. "We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." - Edward Bernays
    6
  105. Thank you for giving him a voice, Pascal 👍
    6
  106. The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) 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 outsiders 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". "The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015 Reality? "Politicians are the best example of how idealists can become idiots, because it can only be an idiot who believes that peace can be forced through (ETERNAL crises and) war." - Stephanie Guss Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite. Endless wars, constant dissent. Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS. Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down. Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Who wields the POWER? Who has had 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-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history. Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? Today we see millions of followers of Islam, praying in their mosques in West Asia, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS, and 125 years ago we saw millions of followers of Christ, praying in their churches, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS. Oh, wait...we didn't see it... We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", and "as seen on TV." Different Empires. Different eras. Same games. The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy". The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys". Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting. The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
    6
  107.  @stoa7302  It goes back a looooong time 🙂 The "freedom and democracy"-argument as a cover story for ulterior motives has a long history. THE PROTOTYPE COLOR REVOLUTION "For Jefferson, as he wrote to Abigail (in private), it was the end of an epoch. It was the end of one epoch and the beginning of another in Europe too. ... In Holland, a bourgeois democratic revolution ... who had been instructed in the American Revolution by John Adams, were cruelly suppressed or driven into exile..." Adams and Jefferson : a Revolutionary dialogue / Merrill D. Peterson, Digital Library of Georgia Online Plattform Jefferson and Adams, no doubt the "inspiration" for hundreds who would follow in their wake, such as Victoria "handing out candy to the MAIDAN" Nuland, as "revolutionary training experts", trying to divide other systems for the own gain. Setting up such "Color Revolutions" throughout their history, and training/supporting revolutionaries in the name of freedom, whilst in reality simply expanding the own spheres of interests by dividing others, has had a long American history. The divide and rule strategy of potentially damaging opposing systems (in the above case, in Europe), are kept in a state of revolutions and upheaval using the "freedom - revolution - democracy" arguments. Obviously, at this early point in history Washington DC had very little power. But as her power grew, so did the influence of the own divide and rule/conquer techniques. Today: Asia beware. Keep a lookout for the tell-tale signs of a US led divide and rule strategy, to set up Asians against each other as a repeat of history. Making use of the own geographical advantage of distance, the US advance via staging areas (like Hawaii, or the Philippines 1898) continued one step at a time, as other nations were set up against each other with clear intent, as revealed by private discussions and letters...not the kind words and speeches intended for the consumption of the MSM news readers, since even waaaay back then all MSM was already in the hands of the billionaire class. A few years later... "From the outset of hostilities, Roosevelt, his pro-Japanese sympathies notwithstanding, privately wished for the continued presence of Russia in East Asia to serve as a counterweight against Japanese expansionism. He perceived that Japanese domination of the region could prove as detrimental to American "Open Door" policy objectives as had the Russian domination. As early as March 19, 1904, he expressed in a letter to his friend Cecil Arthur Spring Rice (then the secretary to the British delegation in St. Petersburg) a hopeful supposition that "the two powers will fight until both are fairly well exhausted, and that then peace will come on terms which will not mean the creation of either a yellow peril or a Slav peril.” The astonishing pace of Japanese arms through the succeeding months gradually convinced the President that a rapid cessation of the war was necessary to preserve Russian influence in the contested region. Writing to Whitelaw Reid, the American ambassador to Britain, on June 5, 1905, Roosevelt admitted that he "should be sorry to see Russia driven out of East Asia,” and averred that "driven out she will surely be if the war goes on.” In sum, he stated to Senator Henry Cabot Lodge on June 16, 1905, "It is best that (Russia) should be left face to face with Japan so that each may have a moderative action on the other." 1994 Closing the Open Door Policy: American Diplomatic and Military Closing the Open Door Policy: American Diplomatic and Military Reactions to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 Reactions to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 Jonathan Bennett Ault College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences (pp.49-51) The same so-called good guys of history, because for these powerful US statesmen and their willing local tools, "crimes are those that others commit" (quote Noam Chomsky). These dividers of entire nations and continents are above the law. Don't ever expect the American legal system to punish such advocates of divide and rule and the bloodshed it results in. Don't expect a majority of Americans to call out their leaders for what they are doing. They either haven't been informed, or don't understand because of their warmongering MSM, don't know, don't care, or even if they did, are not going to stop their leaders... The overwhelming number of Americans, in the sinecure comfort of their "mommy's basements"-existences, are not like Noam Cholmsky, John Mearsheimer, or Brian Berletic, and many others who know what their government is up to and are actually willing to speak out. They are the real heroes of history, following in the footsteps of such "prototype whistleblowers" like Smedley-Butler... The "revolutionary training"-experts care little about the subsequent bloodshed. They are in complete disregard the biblical rule "do not steal/kill", those responsible will "wash hands in innocence", and "point the finger elsewhere" as deflection from their own actions. It is also arguably the cheapest way to expand the own sphere of influence, and gain markets for own products, which is why they do it. It is a cheap way to aquire spheres of influence because the heavy lifting, and bloodshed, is borne by local individuals who had been set up against each other, using the emotions of individuals to create little systems of "revolutionary"-spririts... Asians beware... The "dividers" WILL come for you again.
    6
  108. You can't. We the people should start thinking about a different strategy. All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Asia, Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map. Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers... Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible. It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"... Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country? Join up... It's free. Nobody will ask you to sign anything. Only once there is an impact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial well-organized rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting... Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, international big business, and lobby-friendly Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands. Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
    6
  109. Expansive empires love you if you bow down and submit, just like Native Americans eventually became "heroes" after they were marched into the dusty patches of land granted to them by the invaders, their "reservations". Just like the indigenous people of Hawaii are only heroes today because they could not resist a far superior opponent who annexed them in the late-19th century, they are now granted the "honor" of being presented as a "Disney World"-style "cultural experience" for the overweight mainlanders, slurping their cokes and munching on fries... History has shown that those who offered little resisitance to the invaders, are always on the right side of history while those who put up a stern resistance to any form of overpowering of the own homeland will get slandered, or turned into the pariah, an imperialist technique used as sub-section within the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy.
    5
  110. I can't help thinking about the famous quote, "We investigated ourselves and found that we have done nothing wrong. Sincerely, your government..."
    5
  111. Up to 800,000 dead in Algeria alone. Yeah, I guess "not the worst".
    5
  112. At 23:30 The SU and Great Britain did not only invade Persia/Iran during WW2, but also triggered a famine, just like the more famous one in India. Wiki exposes the typical blame games the power mongers play, trying to deflect own causes for mass-starvation: "The British government blamed the situation on hoarding, inefficient distribution and an inadequate transport system, but Washington suspected that the British had deliberately manipulated the food supply to further their own political objectives.[6] Meanwhile, the Soviets banned food shipments from the north, claimed that they needed the resources for the people and soldiers fighting the Germans, and blamed British mismanagement for the famine since no similar conditions existed in the Soviet-held areas. However, officials who visited Iran before the invasion noted that Iranians were already in near-starvation nationwide." In reality, such artificially triggered famines expose imperialist arrogance, and why the world needs a balance of powers to keep empires out of the own countries, and have leaders consider OWN priorities FIRST.
    5
  113. Divide-and-rule.
    5
  114. ​ @PerceivedREALITY999  Listen around 13:46 When you hear terms like "avoid" (unity), "fragment" (others), it is always divide-and-rule.
    5
  115. Einstein once said if you can't explain something to a 6-year old, you probably don't understand it yourself. How to explain the global balance of power to a 6-year old. 1) Take an old-fashioned scale, those with a pivot and 2 shallow discs. 2) Put a candy bar below every disc. 3) Tell the kid that if I (the adult) put a Lego man on the scale, and the Lego man hits to the candy bar, that I (the adult) will get the candy bar below the Lego man, and he (the kid) will lose it. 4) Nobody is allowed to touch the candy bar, or he will lose it. 5) Demonstrate the counter-strategy for an imbalance, called BALANCING OUT a weight. 6) If the kid can balance the scale by putting a Lego man on the opposite side, the 6-year old gets to keep both candy bars 7) add further scales, to represent states, empires, and alliances (man-made systems) and regions or continents (natural systems), and repeat... I guarantee every 6-year old will "get" how to balance a weight after one or 2 rounds. Even once the incentive has been removed, every 6-year old with average cognitive skills, will STILL get it. The issue is that something as simple as explaining how to balance, will not be understood by certain people: mostly those types leaning towards being rich (status quo), proud (incl. patriotism), hectoring (a-holes), squibbing (nitpickers), swearing (ignorant), carnivorous (greed), all loosely quoting Thomas Jefferson. "The balance of threat theory is an offshoot of neorealism, coined in 1985 by Stephen M. Walt in an attempt to explain why balancing against rising hegemons has not always been consistent in history. In contrast to traditional balance of power theorists, Walt suggests that states balance against threats, rather than against power alone.[86] The "balance-of-power theory is not wrong; it is merely incomplete. Power is one of the factors that affect the propensity to balance, although it is not the only one nor always the most important." The theory acknowledges that power is an extremely important factor in the level of threat posed by a state, but also includes geographic proximity, offensive capabilities, and perceived intentions." (Wiki) "In 1826, George Canning "called the new world into existence to redress the balance of the old". In 1898, Theodore Roosevelt found that the United States had become "more and more the balance of power of the whole globe." In 1941, a New Deal Economist with the National Resources Planning Board, Otto T. Mallery, averred that "destiny offers to the United States the ultimate balance of power and of resources in the world after the war." (wiki) Of course, according to accepted history, the USA was always just "saving the world." (me = ROTFL) "Eventually, explanation what implies "the balance of power favoring freedom" was dropped by "US National Security and Defense Strategies" of 2018: The Pentagon will ensure that the United States remain the "preeminent military power in the world," and the regional "balances of power remain in our favor." [Emphasis added] The "balance of power favoring freedom" appeared identical with the balance of power favoring "us." (wiki) Critical question: Around the year 1900, while London still had the power to greatly influence world affairs, at this pivotal stage of history, how did the London veto Lords intend to avoid becoming the future "caboose" (§§§Footnotes) of someone else's empire as it slowly but surely morphed into a "locomotive" (power) right in front of their eyes around the year 1900? It is not a difficult question. If you have the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being on the own "side" on the rim of the world, faraway from what one has lain the foundation for, then one simply does not have to care what happens in some or other foreseeable future. The own side can benefit from whatever happens... As long as Europeans are dumb enough to believe faraway empires are there to protect them, and can't grasp HOW they are being mis/used to protect the bigger empire, then Europeans will have to keep on suffering. §§§Footnote "In the early Cold War, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson combined the concepts of preponderance and bandwagoning. As he put it, the United States was going to have to be "the locomotive at the head of mankind," while the rest of the world was going to be "the caboose."(§§§Footnote) (wiki) For the kids here too young to know, a "caboose" is the dirty car at the end of the freight train where all the riff-raff go, where the new overlords in Washington DC intended to stick the last remaining true Western European power, the British Empire. ----------------------------- "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise." (globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500) Mike Tyson — "Everyone that you fight is not your enemy and everyone who helps you is not your friend." When a boxer and the average 6-year old, are smarter than the so-called brightest heads on the planet...
    5
  116. Moldova, Georgia, Taiwan, all as "potential next Ukrainians". The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail. The last time the USA gained big time, was after the USA had played its own still relatively small part in setting up Imperialist Europe for failure 100 years ago, starting around 1900 in small steps, using the divide and rule technique of power and from a position of unassailable geographical favor (the geographical reality can also be stated using other words, such as "competing from advantageous ground"/RAND Report, 2019). How are American psycho leaders going to get Eurasian states/countries, incl. their own "friends" in the EU, and the rising East Asian part of BRICS, to go "down" again so the good times of "50% wealth for us" (post-WW2 strategy/McKennan), while attracting and raking in all the runaway talent from everywhere else as these regions are destroyed by crises and war (brain drain), and as these wars are funded by the post-1913 fiat currency dollar hegemony? (see footnote) (this technique of how to sow division, accompanied by a host of examples, is more than sufficiently elaborated in the below comments section and is aka as "divide and rule") How can US leadership avoid having to deal with the OWN divided and ruled population when they can no longer be pacified by throwing heaps of luxury into their laps, getting successively disgruntled as the amount of afforded wealth is decreasing yearly, and ever-more divided more and more unevenly within the own system (1% owning 50% of wealth in the USA) while everybody else on the planets is "exhausted" and "extended," all the while pretending to be friends? Note that the current rising anger within the USA is no longer ground on moral inequalities, such as the large uprisings in the 1960s, and 1970s. The current anger on the the streets, is overwhelming carried by a massive inequality within the OWN country, with the mega-rich encroaching on the own small amounts of acquired wealth in ever more outrageous and openly advocated and politically backed corporate steps. These private equity vultures that were once set loose on the entire planet, are now coming "home to roost"... Obviously, unlike the post-WW2 "good ol' days" there is not enough to pass around anymore, as others rise and start demanding a fair share of the world's resources, on ALL "front lines" (tiers of power). What are they going to do? They are already doing it. Implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power, both abroad as well as over the own people, same as ever since they existed. The top tiers divide and rule, and this functions in one direction only: down, to the base, which is "we the people." They divide us, but we have no way or means to divide them, the top tiers, in return. footnote Money is simply a tender, which is used to allocate the resources of the planet, which are limited. "Control" the money = "control" the resources. It doesn't need a ton of books to explain what money is. Money is simply a tender, which is used to allocate the resources of the planet, which are limited. "Control" the money/currency = "control" the resources. "If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu," February 17th 2024, US Secretary of State Blinken. If you don't got the money honey, YOU are going to be eaten, if YOU don't unite with your neighbors, regardless of their class, religious beliefs, race or ethnicity, place of birth, language, culture or other easily implemented "divides" such as "lines drawn on a map" which are often politically exploited to the gain of the "top tiers." Money is a vehicle to allocate resources within the globalist elite systems, with little bits trickling down to the minions. It's the physical resources which are limited, and who controls the flow of printable money, controls the flow of resources.
    5
  117. At 8:14 The Maidan "color revolution" is being repeated as we speak, as US modus operandi. Georgia/Divide and Rule Here is what they tell you these days: Something along the lines of "Georgian leaders are all Moscow puppets," and the oppression of the poor people via a "foreign influence law," and how it is all about current leaders being Moscow stooges.... Here is what they won't tell you: That the foreign state/empire (Washington DC) which pays these protesters or their handlers, via such agencies as the CIA affiliated NED (of ex-Maidan fame) already have their own act to avoid foreign meddling in the USA. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act What the MSM won't tell you is that the foreign meddling in Georgia came FIRST, and that the act attempting to regulate this foreign meddling by Tiflis, came AFTER that. A typical act of hypocrisy and deception, as per strategy of divide and rule, to avoid continental European/Eurasian unity implemented by Washington DC, as it has been for the past 200 years, using various deceptive divide and rule techniques. First by London, and very convenient for Washington DC. Then after 1945, after the British Empire was driven into the ground using economic warfare means, directly taken over by Washington DC as explained by Michael Hudson in his book Super Imperialism. GRAND STRATEGY/GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS Georgia, and millions of Georgians, are simply being set up as the "next Ukraine." Such a setting up of neighbors against neighbors has a long history and it is considered the absolute "acme of professionalism" by Washington DC to set up others to fight and die, so that US leaders in faraway Washington DC can haggle and arguing how much the lives of these locals are worth, all in efforts to score brownie points amongst their adoring fans. To "invest" in such death, is considered the Washington DC norm, as stated by several Washington DC advocates for US global hegemony. The scale of such setups is not important, nor how it is justified: It is divide and rule. Such selective FAVORATISM is indicative of a divide and rule strategy, by an outside power. Whether it is currently Tiflis, or historically London which was being FAVORED by the POWER with the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE which was Washington DC, it remains a divide and rule strategy. It does not matter if anybody tells you it is a divide and rule strategy, or not, because the strategy is given away by the EVENTS. One might chest-thump around about how powerful ones "fwiends" are, but there will always be a PRICE TAG. See Ukraine today, the "past FAVORITE." There is always a price tag. Often the excuses for meddling mirror each other, from "we must help the poor people" to "but, but, it was voluntary". Regardless of any apologetics it remains DIVIDE AND RULE.
    5
  118. Remember all their names. But as millions of individuals, maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy. All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Asia, Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map. Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers... Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible. It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"... Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country? Join up... It's free. Nobody will ask you to sign anything. Only once there is an impact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial well-organized rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting... Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, international big business, and lobby-friendly Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands. Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
    5
  119. Dutch Ministry of General Affairs asked the Legal Affairs Directorate at Foreign Affairs: “What can we say so that it appears as if Israel is not committing war crimes.”
    5
  120. Excellent. But there is a bigger picture to all of this. The entire system they favor in the West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often repeated nice-sounding storyline. The graphic depiction of Yin and Yang is not only valid about the "good vs bad" dichotomy (Taoism), but can also apply to the model of "UNITY/CONCORD" vs "DIVISION/DISCORD". As the model of Yin and Yang states, there is always some good in the bad, and always some bad in the good, and equilibrium is hard to achieve since human nature tends to allow the pendulum to swing past the point of equilibrium, towards the other pole. Equally, every system based on division per default, always contains some elements of forces of unity. And, the other way around: systems based on the default setting that unity is the main principle, will always contain elements of division. When studying thousands of man-made systems, one reaches the conclusion that some are more "top down" UNITY with some lower tiered "freedoms" allowed in order to keep the peace, whilst others are more "bottom up freedoms" with restrictions applying. Both meet in the middle somewhere, and then try to constantly balance powers between the various factions. A "Republic" is already a "meet-in-the-middle" approach, since it divides power on multiple tiers. What happened in Europe post-1900 can be juxtaposed onto China's recent relevant history of trying to break free from Western dominated imperialism. To anybody who knows a bit of Chinese history, it becomes clear that our Western narrative of "WW2" does NOT apply to China, since China was already in a more or less bloody war between outside imperialists and meddlers (dividers of Chinese unity using local proxies). During its Century of Humiliation, China was a classical case of "war/policy/division" by proxy. Proxies were employed, funded, armed, and financed to achieve the division of China during the Era of European Imperialism. The dividers have it easy. All they have to do to create regional/global division, is to continuously lie to foster dissent, covertly steal for inequality, always meddle using political favouritism, and eternally instigate violence, by either outright declaring war or simply allowing wars to happen (not stop these wars, aka "enabling war as eternal event). The local political forces had to compete with outside dividers which had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER during the 19th and 20th centuries. The local strategists used old strategies to try to re-introduce a fully sovereign China. A union which could be free of outside meddling, completely independent and which was there for Chinese interests first and foremost, and not at the behest of outside imperialist powers and their proxy rule and domination. During these roughly 100 years, the European imperialist powers were later joined by the USA and Japanese imperialist powers, and later Soviet and Western ideologies, all continuously using China as battleground. Trying to overcome the OUTSIDE DIVIDERS by playing the same game of more divisions, with yet more divided Chinese systems, is of course a dumb strategy, because the DIVIDERS will always win. If weak, and while weak, the outside dividers will simply politically capture the rising powers, and morph or incorporate these. Therefore, in order to overcome the outside division, those searching for more internal unity will choose a top-down form of unity, not the bottom-up form of division. You don't fight fire with fire, but with water. One doesn't fight division with more division, if the intention is more unity. Therefore when studying the "WW2" part of the Chinese Century of Humiliation (1839-1947), it becomes clear why the western proxy Chiang-Kai Shek was accused by his allies of "hoarding" his Lend-Lease, and not doing more to fight the Japanese. The local proxies in China during this battle of "post-WW1 China" as yet another link between Ww1 and WW2, were already preparing for the war they KNEW would follow AFTER the Western narrative of "WW2" ended, and the West conveniently disposed of one of these outside proxies (Japan plus local collaborators). That WW2 had already resulted in a weakening of the European powers, for the benefit of whoever was left (grand strategy) was also already clear. WW1 and WW2 were one global struggle with multiple layers and which merely had a 20 year gap in between. Do we live in eternal peace interspersed by wars, or do we live in eternal war, interspersed by peace? In the eternal battle between unity/concord and division/discord, it is we who waste our time arguing. Who is right or wrong? Is it the "weak" who are right/wrong or the "strong"? Is it some the "the West" or is it some of "the rest"? Is it the "democracies" or is it the "autocracies"? Is it the "attacker" or the "defender"? Is it the "blue team" or the "yellow team". As they point fingers vigorously, arguing their "my ingroup" against "your ingroup"-dichotomies, here is one thing the opposites don't realize as they argue like children. Who gains from division? Who gains from unity? As they extend themselves, weaken themselves and end up totally exhausted with arguments, they don't realize they are all the victims of the biggest lie in history. Who gains from eternal division? Qui bono? The finger pointers are at the receiving end of the biggest joke of history, for as they point the finger at someone else to try to pass the blame for their own previous actions, they stumble in broad daylight, and fall for the false prophets who deceive them.
    5
  121.  @stuartwray6175  In power dynamics, the "tail" does not "wag the dog." That is a myth, often quoted by framers and spinners of history, to skew reality. The USA became the "decider" of ME international policies after the weakening European empires were squeezed out, step by step starting with the Suez Crisis and war (1956). The Cold War, and the new "top dogs" (USA/USSR) determined the course of history in the "fracture zone" (unsettled regions without clear spheres of influence) which was the ME.
    5
  122. Yes. It's "divide and rule." Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or the British Empire's Mackinder/Pivot of History before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their geographical advantage. With re. to how tools to implement the strategy are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..." Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves. Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as Kissinger implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combated by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today. Today as we watch on, the Ukraine is being burnt to the "last Ukrainian soldier" accompanied by cheers of "...but, but, but they had a choice!!" Poland will be next to be given a "choice," if the Ukraine fails as US/Western proxy and tool, in a long list of previous examples of the Washington DC/Pentagon-steered global strategy.
    5
  123. I think Moscow and Beijing, in view of London's historical attempts to "reach the center of the chessboard", and then break things up from the inside (divide-and-rule), will be very much against knocking nails in their own project...
    5
  124. "There are two ways to conquer a country. One is by invasion, the other by debt." - John Quincy Adams It's the Ukraine getting conquered, not Russia.
    5
  125. The easiest argument against the "repeat the mistake of 1938"-line of argumentation is this: There need never have been a "Hitler" to "deal with", and a "Sudetencrisis of 1938", if decency had been the principle after WW1, the so-called "war to end all wars". The old trope of "self-determination" in all those "kindly-worded" declarations of the past: if not granted as a universal principle, it is of course nothing else but Divide and Rule/Conquer if it is only implemented selectively to selected few geographically/strategecally vital "friends". "The right of a people to self-determination[1] is a cardinal principle in modern international law ... It states that peoples, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference.[4] ... The concept was first expressed in the 1860s, and spread rapidly thereafter.[5][6] During and after World War I, the principle was encouraged by both Soviet Premier Vladimir Lenin and United States President Woodrow Wilson.[5][6] Having announced his Fourteen Points on 8 January 1918, on 11 February 1918 Wilson stated: "National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. 'Self determination' is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action." [Wiki] It was also trolled as "a right" by so-called "leaders" long before it became codified under international law. "Trolled" to the masses of course, because the intention by "the few" in real positions of power was never to reach "fairness" as a universal principle, but to implement "divide and rule/conquer"-policies. True back then. True today. International law means nothing. Like the people of Northern Ireland (loyalists) were granted the right to determine their own political future. They wanted to belong to the British Empire? Fine. Do not contest their right to choose. "Draw a line" around them... Self-determination status: Badly implemented, but OK...at least "honored". Like the the people of Gibraltar, or the Falklands today have the right to determine their own political future. If they want to belong to the remnants of the British Empire? Fine. Do not contest their right to choose, or invade them... Self-determination status: Honored. Just like the people in Scotland have the right to determine their own political future, and seperate from the UK if they wish to do so as majority (free will). Inform them of potential harmful future effects of such own choices, but allow them to choose. Self-determination status: Honored. Just like the people of that old artificial entity "Yugoslavia" (once historically imposed top down) had the right to determine their own political future (1990s). Due to the actions of "wannabe"-alphas in Belgrade, the people decided to create new countries , to create new alliances, and to re-align. Self-determination status: Historical past error (divide and rule of the Balkans) corrected. And the people of that old artificial entity called "Czechoslovakia" (historically imposed top down by giving a "favored status to Chechs and Slovaks) were given the right to determine their own political future. After the "old alpha" (UdSSR) crumbled, the people weighed potential advantages/disavantages and decided to send "Czechoslovakia" to the grave... Self-determination status: Historical past error corrected (divide and rule of Central Europeans by France/GB). Just like the people of the Sudan were given the right to determine their own political future. They created 2 new countries, where none were before. Fine. Whatever keeps the (sort of) peace, and helps stave off eternal civil wars... Self-determination status: Historical past error belatedly corrected (colonialism: old "contested sphere of influence" between GB and France). The people of the Krim Pininsula were given the same rights as everybody else expected for themselves of course. The people were given the right to choose their own destiny. Fine. Whatever keeps the peace, and helps stave off eternal civil war...oh wait. That didn't happen... Self-determination status: Not honored. In 1919 the people of the Sudetenland should have been given the same rights as everybody else expected for themselves (the same as for example, the loyalists in N.Ireland). Self-determination status: Not honored. Lines were randomly drawn, and the kindly-worded declarations meant nothing. We can carry on with such examples of "granted" vs. "not granted" for a long time. All such examples will reveal the random implementation. We are also confronted with the effects of hypocrisy. It is called "history". Simple rule of decency: Let the same count for all as a universal principle. Do onto others, as you wish to be done onto. Want a peacefull world? Don't play "divide and rule"-games with human beings... If the "done onto"-part only depends on having the right temporary friends and not "right/wrong" as a principle, then expect eternal war. Welcome to the world of "Divide and Rule/Conquer". As long as key decision re. "who to award territory to" is not taken out of the hands of power mongers (of any side), and placed into the hands of the people who are affected, there will not be peace.
    5
  126. So...do nothing at all?
    5
  127. It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal. They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty. Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.” “The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.” “Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”. “We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.” Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control. What that would have meant, we see today. Settler colonists, protected by the IDF, have been occupying this concept of the "Bantustan" one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
    5
  128. Correct. A hierarchy is not democratic. The most powerful is "the boss." Power determines, and interests decide. "We" the little minions, are only allowed our little emotional surges, and "backpatting" like democracy, when it is being suggested to us that "we" have influence and a choice.
    5
  129. "Everyone who wants to know what will happen ought to examine what has happened: everything in this world in any epoch has their replicas in antiquity." Niccolò Machiavelli If you study enough history, a pattern emerges which exists right through to today. Regarding how the strategy of divide and rule/conquer works, and how old it is with regards to the the USA and Europe. First US attempts to meddle in Europe for an own gain (independence from London) can be observed even before the USA became independent. Obviously these influential individuals were operating in what was still European spheres of influence in North America (political pro-independence leaders, or other economic and financial elites in the future USA with compatible goals). These gaining powers in North America aimed to secede from the British Empire, and were as British as British lordships got. They therefore knew how London ticked, and what would trigger London into action in the event of ...let's say "events" on the continent of Europe. London's long-standing policy for the continent of Europe was to "avoid the single hegemony" or any too strong power (single country, alliance or otherwise) to take shape on the continent of Europe. How does one goad others into war? How does one goad London into a war on the continent, thereby creating the shadow one could operate in to secure the own post-revolutionary security, and in order to achieve own expansive goals in North America? Obviously, by aiding in the achievement of a bigger system on the continent of Europe, which would then be extending London, by coaxing London to engage in Europe to "avoid the single hegemony on the continent." These "lords"-types in North America still ticked the same way their cousins in London ticked. Set others up against each other, employing whatever political means were available. Short history of that, and on the parallel track to the European history (compartmentalized history): send revolutionary training experts (Jefferson, Adams) to Europe, to sow dissent with COLOR REVOLUTION-style ops (§footnote 1), in the opposing system Europe as best possible with limited means, and thereby weakening potential European opposition to the own expansion. This was by way of making use of French intentions, by strengthening the French position, which was being suspiciously checked by neighbors Great Britain, Prussia, etc... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batavian_Republic These French ambitions here, aided along by whatever powers the still largely powerless fledgling USA could muster (quote): "In early 1795, intervention by the French Republic led to the downfall of the old Dutch Republic. The new Republic enjoyed widespread support from the Dutch populace and was the product of a genuine popular revolution. However, it was founded with the armed support of the French revolutionary forces. The Batavian Republic became a client state, the first of the "sister-republics", and later part of the French Empire of Napoleon. Its politics were deeply influenced by the French, who supported no fewer than three coups d'état to bring the different political factions to power that France favored at different moments in its own political development..." A COLOR REVOLUTION 1.0. It was in these political waters that Jefferson and Adams subsequently swam like fish, as explained in the footnote... What weight such actions by such power players carried in dividing Europeans at the time (late 18th century) is irrelevant. What role it played in creating a more powerful France, to "extend London/British Empire", equally so. It is in studying the events themselves that the pattern or strategy emerges. After their own independence (1776), achieved by operating in the shadows cast by Paris' unfolding ambitions for the French Empire in Europe, the power players in North America instigated the step 1) of achieving the single hegemony in North America with an own war... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War ...whilst London was suitably "extended" keeping an eye on the continent (see RAND Report 2019, for the use of similar language for modern times). Washington DC could then expand outwards into all the Americas, fighting war after war to avoid the threat of a 2-front war-scenario for the brand new USA , still stuck between the vestiges of European powers in North America, and what still remained of Native American tribal systems, which was slowly being ground down and pushed westwards in war after war. N.E.W.S. = North, East, West, and South, but mostly West and South at the expense of weak neighbors (Spain, Native American tribal homelands), and squeeze out vestiges of European colonial powers France and Great Britain, or turn them into "weak neighbors, fish on both sides" (Bismarck quote), in a step by step approach. Later on during the 19th century, further European actions bound European attention, notably Bismarck's unification (1862 - 1871) of the future Germany, meaning that European imperialist powers' ability to avoid further US territorial gains would be more limited in impact (strategy of binding resources or keeping the focus in Europe). Again, another limited war in North America, the American Civil War, operated in this "power vacuum" because other European states' attentions were bound to the continent of Europe. The neighbors' focus was here, closer to the own core heartlands. During these two crucial phases of gaining the continental hegemony, Washington DC's actual power to divide Europeans was still low, but it was put into effect as best possible. That included having Russia as the current best friend (favoritism, or an "anchor/foothold", a "divide and rule"-strategy, (see §footnote 2) in Europe until roughly the late-19th century, and shifting favor from one to the other for own gain. Washington DC turned away from this "defensive realism" approach around the year 1900, and changed over towards ever more "offensive realism" (John Mearsheimer) after achieving a consolidation of power on the entire continent, after the American Civil War, and the subsequent Era of Reconstruction from 1866 to 1877 (roughly in parallel to Bismarck's unification of Germany, which bound London and Paris attentions). Again, the possibility these powers had to exploit US division at this point, was limited by the need to focus on the own doorsteps (Central Europe and Italy). Also after that, right through to today, the dividers of Europeans in Washington DC found easy prey amongst the "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling European nations, and their "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling" leaderships... Having millions of citizens being tutored into being "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling", means to be easily divided, in the divide and rule/conquer strategy of an outside power, the Washington DC power players. Starting around 1900, they played European leaders "like fiddles", employing mainly "favoritism".
    4
  130. "The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do." -- Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    4
  131. Search for "Bread and Circusses." It is an old Roman Empire technique to keep the masses well-fed and entertained. The "entertainment" is often brutal, and depicting violence. Remember the narrative and depictions in Rambo 1 back in the 1980s? Those days, the "best friends" were the Muslims.
    4
  132.  @davidmatlock6410  Olaf "cum ex" Scholz....
    4
  133. India is playing the game of "buck catcher" for the West, while at the same time trying to gain the most out of the geopolitical tensions in the region. "Playing" both sides. A dangerous game, with a historical parallel in France around the year 1900. That did not go well for the citizens of France.
    4
  134. Great interview. Generally agreed, but around 4:00 Petro ignores the impact of how rescinding Brest-Litovsk led to the forced removal of the hegemonic powers (Central Powers, mainly focused around Berlin), which then "opened the door" for the subsequent communist invasion. Same as the Ukraine was historically set up before during the year 1918 with the rescinding of Brest-Litovsk, which opened the Ukraine up as a "new front" to attract Moscow's focus away from own Allied invasions, and Allied actions in the Far East, Murmansk, etc. (planned or already ongoing, irrelevant to the timeline). The Ukraine in 1918, in a state of a relatively peaceful orderly status quo, set up as the sacrificial pawn by rescinding Brest-Litovsk. The Ukraine, used to goad the new communist rulers in Moscow, to attacking here, away from the own campaigns. Post-1990s, history rhymed. The Ukraine around the year 2000, in a state of a relatively peaceful orderly status quo, set up as the sacrificial pawn. Historically, and here is the crux of the matter, the ONLY times the outside powers boldly interfered in any meaningful way on the continent, is if there was a danger of a "single hegemony" taking shape. They would then step in, using their own IRON AND BLOOD with force, to "avoid the single hegemony," by declaring the worldwide war, out of local conflicts. How many die, is apparently completely irrelevant. And in the future we will see this "pattern" repeating, until European/Eurasian powers unite, and end the pattern of eternally repeating/rhyming history, out of their own free will.
    4
  135. "The opposite for courage is not cowardice, it is conformity. Even a dead fish can go with the flow." -- Jim Hightower The problem in Europe, which is "rhyming", is too many "dead fish" going with the "flow" of their systems and strategies. Stalin was the British Empire's most capable apprentice. After the SU's rise in power, starting with the 5-year plans (1928), Stalin intended to imitate London's strategic standpoint: that of "sitting on the fence" as others AHEM... "extended" each other for the benefit of the own strategic rise, by implementing an own "economic plan" (unbeknownst to most history fans, London had such an "economic plan" to steer wars on the continent, before WW1). Unlike the strategic advantage provided to London "around 1900" of having a heartland (England) unreachable in any strategically viable way (the the English Channel, and the Royal Navy), Stalin would have to resort to "paper" to protect the Soviet Union's citizens, as he set the Axis free to attack the hated "capitalistas".... "Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time." Strategies as revealed from a primary source, from the memory of those present at a speech Stalin allegedly made on the 19th August 1939, just before enterring a non-agression pact with Germany, the alpha of the system of fascist states, and self-declared enemy of the system of communism. The SU was a power on the periphy of Europe, with vast natural resources which could potentially steer a war in Central Europe, by controlling key raw materials like oil or manganese needed to wage modern wars. By allowing or restricting the flow of such economic means and resources to Germany as a result of an economic treaty as part of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact of August 1939, the SU could steer events and extend limited wars past a point where it might have naturally stopped previously, by drying up. History "rhyming", but this time it was Stalin who attempted to "steer" events, with an economic plan. It is irrelevant how correct the actual words were, or whether these were Stalin's enemies merely trying to get back at him by fabricating a consensus: these are strategies. In view of the fact that the SU did not really need (concept of necessity) such a nonaggression pact, the overall strategic analysis affords weight to the veracity that it was most likely stated by Stalin using these exact, or similar words. "Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible", means that resources like oil are examples of such means. The intention is gain for an own system, for example by furthering the expansion of the own communist system southwards, in the renewed Great Game called the Second Tournament of Shadows against the British Empire, if the resources delivered to Nazi Germany seriously weakened the British Empire's home base in London. By ensuring that warring systems, including Great Britain, end up weakened to a state that (quote) "... both sides become exhausted" so that the rival parties can no longer oppose the expansion and gain of the own system. Words can be used to enhance (one side) or deflect from (other side) concepts which are the indicative. Analysis: Grasp the concepts/strategies: the "words" are the ancillaries, made to influence readers. Today, the "powers" steering the war in the Ukraine are the so-called "superior West", and their "values". These powers have no incentive to stop the war, and the killing, because the function of the Ukraine is to "extend Russia" (RAND Report, 2019).
    4
  136. With regards to how Washington DC in conjuction with their quasi client states, the EU/NATO, will try to "manage" both a potentially possible "more unity in Eurasia", as well as manage/moderate a potentially possible unity amongst the "rimlands" of Asia, Africa, and South America, as we can witness unfolding today in slow steady steps... "Divide and rule, the politician cries; Unite and lead, is watchword of the wise." ― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe "The rich ruling class has used tribalism, a primitive caveman instinct, to their advantage since the beginning of time. They use it to divide and conquer us. They drive wedges between us peasants and make us fight each other, so we won’t rise up against our rulers and fight them. You can observe the same old trick everywhere in America today... That doesn’t just happen all by itself. There are always voices instigating these fights." ― Oliver Markus Malloy "Divide and rule, weaken and conquer, love and enslave, these are three tenets of politics" ― Bangambiki Habyarimana "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)." ― Mark Twain "Any fool can know. The point is to understand." ― Albert Einstein One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is. Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use ze technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Regardless of the "system of gain" in question, which come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves... Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank. The favorite = the proxy. Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish. All that is needed is a position of superior power. Divide and rule/conquer creates "favorite sons" (as default "best friends") on the one side, and "scapegoats" on the other as "default rivals/enemies", just like 200 years ago during the age of colonialism... Divide and rule creates dangerous precendents, and lays potentially self-destructive foundations, and Asia should learn from European mistakes, and never say "never."
    4
  137. The Monroe Doctrine was "divide and rule". After Europe became "exhausted" from the Napoleonic Wars, the opportunity was exploited in Washington DC for the implementation of global divide-and-rule. Anybody who understands this one-liner and sees the strategy behind it, understands history truly. Previously, and analogous to Russia in Eurasia during the Napoleonic Wars, the USA had used this war mainly fought in Europe and which had exhausted all, to expand its own spheres of influence as expansion into North America (details of this territorial expansion as sphere of influence in the wake of "European exhaustion" is elaborated in like every other history book about the USA). The Napoleonic Wars were fought globally using various techniques of power (incl. but not limited to military clashes) but the main battlefield was "IN Europe". Here is where the war would be decided. In the period following the Napoleonic Wars, European leaders were simply too weak to protest or do anything about this "global example of divide-and-rule" (Monroe Doctrine), and too divided to unite against it as "single hegemony", and as declared by Washington DC without consultation, and which intended to squeeze Europeans "out" of the Americas in the most hegemonic fashion. Small dependencies of the "current best friends" would be honoured for the MOMENT whilst all were still "best friends", see "Trump" today, just doing their global politics, but that is another story within the divide-and-rule reality of the world...
    4
  138. That time is approaching. For 50 years the citizens of the USA have lived the "good life" at the expense of the rest of the world in the immediate post-WW2 years, when the rest of the planet was so weak it could not avoid US institutions/military/NGOs from imposing themselves, and vacuuming off enormous gain... No, that ratio is down to 30% of the world's wealth. It's decreasing... When US citizens finally get closer to a "fair share" of the world?s resources/wealth, and have to make do with the same amounts as everybody else, they will finally find out what level of psychopaths and nutcases are inside, operating from within their OWN country/state. When they can no longer vacuum off the wealth of the world, in unfair manner, they will start finding out what human nature is like. That time is approaching.
    4
  139.  @aneurindavies5943  Thank you for the tip. I'll look into it. Theodore Roosevelt was an imperialist, and "ratchet" for further US expansion. Every POTUS, with few exceptions, is a "ratchet" who takes a step forward (systemic expansion), then "locks in" (strategy of slow systemic advances).
    4
  140. The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, 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 Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900). Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors. Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet. Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned against "divisions" within unity/peace/Eden/whatever, which create GAIN for OUTSIDERS... Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule. Today, their leaders are too weak to unite. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war. Insert levers of lies, mistrust... Create favorites: favoritism... Point the systemic 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." [Critical question: Who is "we"?] And that is what they did. America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist 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) regarding Eurasia for the template. 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? That is what empires have always done. Create the default rival/enemy. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances... The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power... ------------------------------------------------ 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, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite, or at least avoid total disunity. 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... Today, just like at all points on the timeline, 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). "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. --------------------------------------------------------- The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. 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... 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-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Same people and systems. Different times. Same games. ----------------------------------------------------- The people of the Africa 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance. Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner, the intention is simply to avoid unity in Africa and the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. 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... Who wields the POWER? Four corners of the globe. Same games.
    4
  141.  @realvipul  Wow. AI just did in 3 seconds what 85% of humanity can never achieve, and even the "10%-ters" get wrong... Welcome to the 5%. "Five percent of the people think; ten percent of the people think they think; and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think." - Thomas A. Edison
    4
  142. Pegasus.
    4
  143. The USA has bases in Japan. If the USA uses these bases during a crisis or war with China, Japan automatically becomes involved whether they like it or not, if the USA decides to use these bases. This is regardless of what Tokyo decides, because Washington DC is the "decider."
    4
  144. It was strategy at the core, using the appeal to emotion as justification. THE CORE STRATEGY For the British Empire starting around 1917: to use mass-immigration as a tool of division as they did all over their empire. Lines were drawn, and rulers imposed onto the people living here, who were never asked as a collective. Whether it was the White Highlands (Kenya) or Palestine, these white immigrants brandished their newly found power (as the favorites of an empire). In other cases (Fiji, for example) mass-immigration of other subjects were used to cause disruption within the original indigenous power structures. This power of the hegemony was transformed into pieces of paper (deeds) granting CHOSEN FAVORITES property in a promised land, and these new favorites/best friends in the form of mass-immigration would then, in return, protect the British Empire's interests. In the Levant, it was the very precious Suez Canal from the threat of potential attacks by land armies, from the north...because the British Empire did as it always did. Create useful tools in a "barrier state" (strategy), for its own perceived potential future gain. That of the automatic ally (strategy). If the Levant was attacked by a northern empire on the way to Egypt/Suez as per Heartland Theory (1904), via land routes where the mighty Royal Navy was useless, the "poor little friends" which had previously been strategically set up as homelands/states, would be defended.
    4
  145. There are probably more parallels between Morroco trying desperately to hang on to her independence (1905), and Korea trying to do the same at the same time (1904), on the other side of the world. Neither of these minor independent powers had sufficient political clout, strong enough industry or military, or any strong big brothers (powers) which stepped forward, in order to deter stronger imperialist powers using the territories as "chessboards" for the own games. Therefore, both Morocco and Korea subsequently lost their independence, also because it simply wasn't "useful" in the trade off mentality of the imperialist powers, to keep these minor nations independent, if they had a higher trade off potential (game theory). Furthermore there are specific key differences between the concepts of geopolitics and grand strategy 1) geopolitics, mainly relevant in times of peace 2) grand strategy, incl. the "war games" of the various military powers In the unfortunate realistic analysis of the late-19th century, 1) would always be subservient to 2), because it was a very militaristic world, based on the principle that might is right, and all else subservient to greed being "good" (sic.). In a further analysis, comparing the 19th century in Europe to Korea creates false "parallels" in history. Firstly, there was the quasi religious "racial pecking order" at the time of the Age of Imperialism. Since these ideologies would not necessarily be openly voiced (diplomacy) during the discussions. The scala naturae (Latin: “scale of nature”), or Great Chain of Being was the norm at the time for overwhelming number of western imperialist powers and their plenipotentiaries, and Asians simply "counted less" than Europeans. Searching for this "racial pecking order" in the archives also makes little sense: the diplomats would have simply been too "nice" to state these priorities openly. Koreans and other Asians were simply not deemed as an equal ranking, and their interests from an own perspective would therefore have unfortunately taken the "back seat" in any considerations. That was even the case much later, at Versailles in 1919, when all these "inferior races" (sic./misguided "logic" of the times) and their hopes and desires remained outside of the main discussion points of the conference, which solely dealt with the top down measured deemed worthy by the imperialist powers, to which realistically the USA must also be included. Secondly, according to grand strategy, how "useful" was both Belgian and Swiss neutrality to the other main European powers? After 1815, Belgian neutrality not only addressed the major security considerations of the "winning side", but also of France as the "loser" of the Napoleonic Wars. For Great Britain, it "neutralized" the "pistol pointing at the heart of England" (Antwerp), in that this vital major estuary and its major ports could no longer serve as a staging area for attacks on the hearland of the British Empire. For Prussia/Berlin, it made France a lot smaller and less powerful, and "neutralized" the shortest route any invading army could reach the industrial heartland of Prussia, the rapidly gaining "Ruhr industrial zone". Even for France, the "loser" of the war, any Central European coalition could not easily reach Paris and the industrial north of France. An invading army from the east would have to pass through the rough more hilly regions as later in 1870/71, a more difficult approach. Swiss neutrality was not a major security dilemma for any of the neighbors, since this mountainous region was obviously totally impassable to any major army, especially if it also meant gaining a capable enemy as a result of such an invasion. Swiss neutrality being so durable and longlasting was therefore more a factor of "geography" and the own capable defense forces. There were no direct axis between any of the surrounding major powers in the event of a war, meaning that "going through Switzerland" was neither a military shortcut, nor a healthy prospect for the own wellbeing, in view of strong defenses and a strong mutual sense of unity in Switzerland. Korea, late 19th century: A few small observations. London's self-interest in suggesting a Korean neutrality must be analyzed when zooming out into the global picture: it would have been the cheapest way to keep London's imperialist rivals out of Korea, whilst the British Empire was already fully engaged elsewhere, not only the Great Game against Russia, the Mediterranean Sea region, in Africa and the Pacific Region (French, German and US demands for island dependencies). From a London point of view, several western rivals were heading for China/Asia: mainly the USA, Russia, and France. Plus growing in might, also Japan, which all these western powers were building up in order to stand up to Russia. To a lesser extent, the other colonial powers. British interests in a "Korean neutrality" was therefore from an own perspective, not the considerations of the local Korean leaders, same as the creation of the artificial entity "Belgium" in Europe, was purely from the own security perspective. Again, this realistic approach would most likely be against what "archival entries" suggest, because what was openly stated was often not the real reasons or motivations. Another factor making it unlikely foreign powers would have given the vital guarantee for a Korean neutrality, with own military might: Unlike Belgium for example, Korea already existed, and therefore could not serve the convenient purpose of "removing taxpayers" (geopolitical consideration) from a rival system. The creation of Belgium removed taxpayers, men of conscription age, and vital strategic locations as staging areas for military forces, which was very favorable for mainly GB and Prussia. For Great Britain and her "friendly local system" Japan, Korean neutrality removed the possibility Russia had for gaining the much sought after "warm water port" for her navies, but in terms of land armies a neutralisation of Korea would have removed the potential Japan had to use it as a staging area to move against Russia, which is what then happened. All in all though, there seemed little incentive for any European imperialists power to guarantee a Korean neutrality with the own power (military might), especially after the USA and Japan entered into "trade off" (Philippenes traded off against Korea). The latter "trade off" would then have possibly been the "coup de grace" of Korean neutrality.
    4
  146. Ideology over reason. "Democracy" is an ideology. Western style democracy is NOT about "doing what the people want" but to morph systems, which is an old Roman-era strategy of power, to find proxies for outside systemic gain.
    4
  147. ​ @jullietmburu9672  Right from the start, despite efforts to claim to be "neutral," GB favored the side of the immigrants they enabled entering the Levant, steering the process with "quotas." Their "favorites" (immigrants) were a "divide and rule"-technique, practiced all over the Empire. Create a "favorite" as a "proxy" (strategy) to implement own goals. The own goal of the British Empire was purely selfish: to create an ingroup which would protect the Suez Canal, from the potential attack via the landbridge of Palestine/Sanai Dessert, towards Suez by any potential rival northern Empire... [see Mackinder/Heartland Theory/Pivot of History/1904]
    4
  148. Excellent lineup. Well done 👍
    4
  149.  @JJRM8  US/collective West actions already started waaay before anything you mentioned again, because it was already the strategy to isolate Russia and set her up against neighbors, using political capture. That was decided upon in the 1990s. A typical imperialist position is to never accept blame for own actions, and point at effects of the own actions, and then claim that these are the "actions" of "the other side," and the other side was already the pre-determined own strategy per Wolfowitz Doctrine. That automatically determined to stay rich and powerful, by keeping all others "down".
    4
  150. *insights
    4
  151. Hats off gentlemen, for being able to focus on the truly indicative. At some point I'm sure Dr. Crosston wanted to bring up the "dissolution of Russia", but sadly forgot to address it later on. It'll be great if you could have it on again Pascal, to get his opinion about this unfolding "reality" for Washington DC strategists. This discussion is unlike our MSM, totally under the spell of "narratives" they thought they had come up with themselves, completely independently, "The concept of the "totally beside the point"-debates, filling up primetime, occupying all our attentions... The "point the finger there", so people don't look here as "oldest trick in the book". The power of suggestion, or the "Jedi mind trick". Around the year 2000, Washington DC strategists had a little problem. How to get millions of Russians**(footnote) to surround and encroach on the US rival China, even though these citizens had not the slightests intentions to do so. In case Moscow refused to do so, either by joining NATO or otherwise, then the inhabitants of China's bordering regions somehow had to be "Jedi mind tricked" into doing so indirectly... The answer of course lies in the "dissolution of Russia", and the "Jedi mind trick" is to get millions of citzens in Western countries to think they came up with this result all on their own: that such a dissolution of Russia is the best or only option. And they will think so without their minds being influenced in the slightest. Coincidently, following around June/July last year, just such reports about "how minorities from Russia's east are overwhelmingly drafted", are a part of our Western news outlets' narratives. The sublime messaging is of course that millions reach the conclusion that it would be better for all these poor people in case they had their own countries... And millions of individuals will think they will have reached this conclusion all by themselves, without being influenced... It is in fact the repeat of a similar "Jedi mind trick" around a 125 years ago, played on millions of other citizens, around the year 1900. The dilemma London strategists had with regards to the population of England: How to psychologically influence millions of citizens to "protect France", and hundreds of thousands of young men to volunteer to fight for France, even though they had not the slightests intentions to do so. This dilemma for the strategists was how to get people to do something via suggestion, and to think they had even come up with the idea all by themselves. The "Jedi mind trick" was of course to substitute "unpopular France" with "weak people" (***footnote). Even though today it is known for a fact, and proven by archival entries, the fact THAT the London elites/strategists intended to "avoid the collapse of France" as THEIR priority, they knew that most young Britons had no affinity for France, and wouldn't volunteer for a muddy trench and a potentially painful death to protect the people who had been their historical "rival/enemy" for hundreds of years. The power of such "Jedi mind tricks" can even be proven, both by the reader of this comment, who simply has to analyse the own thought patterns, and conclude that even today, the overwhelming majority of individuals will instinctively respond exactly like the lordships intended even across the space of time of more than a hundred years. Reality: As the balance of power shifted from France to Germany after 1871, the Empire had a new continental "default rival/enemy". That is the power strong minds exact over weaker minds. Even the "coolest cat" (personality type), cannot resist the urge of the "laser pointer", as proven by all those YT cat videos, as an analogy... **"Russians" or the citizens of The Russian Federation, are of course not all ethnic Russians. The "Jedi mind trick" is to get them to detach from Russia, either with a "Versailles"-type ruling, as Western leaders dictating terms to Moscow/new Muscovite State, and "dissolution" with the sharpie markers on maps, or as a result of their own feelings, as "laser pointer guided"-emotions. Furhtermore, as ancillary, to get most Americans and Europeans to think Russia wants to rule the world, or "have an empire again", or whatever... ***Note that the alternative for Berlin strategist in July 1914, as a result of geography, as the "long war scenario" as going over the own border with France via hilly mountainous regions, with narrow valleys and single track railways, dotted with powerfull forts and defensive positions, was almost guaranteed not to happen in any "domino stones" reality of unfolding events, in case there was the threat of a "2-front war" with both Russia in the East ("Russian steamroller to Berlin") and France in the West (Plan XVII) at the same time.
    4
  152. Yes, "on paper" it remained neutral, but it openly supported the Allies after 1944 by allowing the operation of military aircraft from the Azores, amongst other "non-neutral" actions.
    4
  153. "... how America "manages" Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 percent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about 60 percent of the world's GNP and about threefourths of the world's known energy resources. Eurasia is also the location of most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states. After the United States, the next six largest economies and the next six biggest spenders on military weaponry are located in Eurasia. All but one of the world's overt nuclear powers and all but one of the covert ones are located in Eurasia. The world's two most populous aspirants to regional hegemony and global influence are Eurasian. All of the potential political and/or economic challengers to American primacy are Eurasian. Cumulatively, Eurasia's power vastly overshadows America's. Fortunately for America, Eurasia is too big to be politically one..." THE GRAND CHESSBOARD American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski Critical question***. If it is the historical realisation ever since before Mackinder (Pivot of history) that a united Eurasia at the "core" of the planet, is the danger to the periphery, then what is the strategy to avoid that? Notice the word: "manages". In the past, Europe has already been "managed", and Washington DC continues doing so. What Brzezinski fails to elaborate on in his book, is that his "periphery" of states stretching from South East Asia, via the Indian subcontinent, through Africa (and its strongest economy, South Africa) and from there to South America is the periphery of the world, just like Great Britain and the U.S.A. was once the "periphery" of Europe at the end of the 19th century, while continental Europe was the "old core"... ***"Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgment.[1] The subject is complex; several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, and unbiased analysis or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking,[2] and accordingly, a critical thinker is one who practices the skills of critical thinking or has been schooled in its disciplines.[3] Richard W. Paul has suggested that the mind of a critical thinker engages both the intellectual abilities and personal traits necessary for critical thinking.[4] Critical thinking presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism[5][6] and sociocentrism." (Wiki)
    4
  154. Re. the question why all the observed reality is allowed to happen, is because it is based on human nature, and the nature of our prefered systems of capitalism/democracy. All states, also the western style "liberal democracies" and "good states" have set up deep-impacting non-elected agencies, which are outside of the control of any voters, and therefore the collective wisdom and moral values of humanity. The resulting system is that of pyramidically shaped systems of gain, contained within other pyramidical systems of gain, in which ultimate gain and power is funneled to the very top. These pyramidically shaped (structured) systems of gain called "capitalism" and "politics" have the stated goal of pushing and removing opposition, largely and correctly known as being a "dirty game" (euphemism) and are designed by nature to attract fellow human beings with psychopathic tendencies (***see below footnotes). A large portion of our fellow human beings perceive these as valid traits to achieve the own political and personal priorities. "Might is right", and "end justifies the means" are still axioms of so-called superiority. There is also no reason to believe that any other system which promises power, will not attract similar numbers of bullies and psychopaths. Reality: "Liberal democracies" and "capitalist gain models" attract psychos like moths to the flame, and most human beings wouldn't be able to spot a "psycho" even if their lives depended on it. Most human beings living in symbiosis of systems either don't have the skill to recognize bad actors, nor the inclination to remove them since it is tangentially beneficial to own favored systems, or have become directly entrapped by the "gain models" (pyramids) lead by such bad actors. An example of this would be the case of Oliver North, whose psychopathic dealings were rewarded by "the system" with a highly paid management position (NRA). It doesn't seem to bother sufficient decent people enough to make such "management styles" impossible (effect a "stopper" against such models de jure or de facto). Indeed, based on observation, and looking back in history it can therefore be concluded that such behaviour is only given a "slap on the wrist", and therefore continues in "good empires". Studies have shown that models based on "intent of gain", like capitalism, have rates of people with psychopathic tendencies as high as 20%. Compare that reality to the average for a normal society, or usual non-gain models of cooperation, which is around a "1% psycho saturation rate". There is no reason to believe other models of "intent of gain" (like politics) do not have similar high rates of psychos. All empires as collectives of individuals have by nature, psychopathic and bullying tendencies. Note that the "Hollywood image" of the "psycho" and "the bully" is faaaaar removed from reality. The unfortunate reality is that most psychopaths/bullies remain undetected, and undetectable, because they manipulate entire groups of "non-psychos/non-bullies" into following them as beneficiaries, who then start entire campaigns of coverups and deception themselves. These psychopathic traits are generally considered to be common traits, and are defined: stated where these individual traits overlap with governments: - have split personalities (the political reality of "doves" and "hawks" coexisting in one "brain") - they are narcissistic (constantly pointing the finger "outwards" in attempts at deflecting from own actions and goals) - they have "brains" (governments) which control, or misconstruct data - scheme for own gain (policies, doctrines, and the likes of that) - use manipulative strategies as tools in order to mislead billions of people These bad actors and deceivers are allowed "to play", to lie and deceive, telling their inhabitants things like "all we want is peace", whereas in reality there are elements pushing for eternal war which benefits the systems they represent. Further traits, which can be scaled up or down to all levels of human cooperation, but not limited to (from wiki): "Meanness. Lacking empathy and close attachments (edit: the urge to avoid unity with others), disdain of close attachments (edit: steer away from mutually beneficial treaties), use of cruelty to gain empowerment (edit: torture, concentration camps, ethnic cleansing, etc. and then making excuses for the perpetrators), exploitative tendencies (edit: i.e. ethnic cleansing, etc.), defiance of authority (like disdain for higher bodies of common humanity, like UN rulings), and destructive excitement seeking (edit: saying things like "dodging bullets is exciting", whilst on expeditions intending to steal self-governance from others)." (end of quote) Therefore, logically, all one needs to do is find out what these manipulators (as a collective hive mind operating in pyramically shaped systems of gain) are trying to manipulate the majorities into cheering for. If you wish to truly understand the "how" and "why", then go to the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under this video. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired. No, these essays are not a "conspiracy theory." Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory. Most of what we are fed by our systems, as "rote leaning" details, are "99% ancillary details": not saying these are untrue or wrong, but simply that they are not as important on the ranking or "tiers" of events as geopolitics and grand strategy. For these geostrategists, divide and rule/conquer is their main strategy, regardless of what you as an individual believe. Footnotes/key words for further research: * 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths * Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy * The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
    4
  155. ​ @tonyp2865  Saying that something is "nonsense" without being able to state why, is a lazy argument, and an "opinion."
    4
  156. Just checking in, to see which channel is being blocked by yt today...
    4
  157. 9:30 How did we get here? Dr Brenner: "Let's begin and look at the United States..." No truer words ever spoken.
    4
  158. There's no business like war business...
    4
  159. "Do you want your wife and children to end up just like all those poor people in the gutter, which you report about daily?" That is quite a powerful argument. The weak will bend and follow...
    4
  160. Lying by omitting is one of the oldest propaganda tricks. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie Our leaders lie to us, thinking we won't notice.
    4
  161. ​ @DetKritiskeArkiv  "Money wasted" is a point of view. For humanity, for peace, for the taxpayer, etc. it is certainly wasted. From the point of view of the Military Industrial Complexes of the NATO members, shareholders, etc., this money is certainly not "wasted." There is a reason politicians constantly rub their hands in glee, about the "good investment" this war is.
    3
  162. Keeping some "in", others "out", and potential rivals "down" is hooded language as description of the divide-and-rule strategy which London used on the continent while it had the political clout. After WW2 the USA took over the role of dividing Europe/Eurasia.
    3
  163. George Bush. Divide-and-rule. With "the empire", or "the enemy". So much for concepts like choice, or neutrality...
    3
  164. The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) 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 outsiders 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". "The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015 Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite. Endless wars, constant dissent. Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players. Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down. Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Who wields the POWER? Who has had 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-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history. Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? Today we see millions of followers of Islam, praying in their mosques in West Asia, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS, and 125 years ago we saw millions of followers of Christ, praying in their churches, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS. We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV." Different Empires. Different eras. Same games. The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy". The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys". We are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC... PIC: Political Industrial Complex FIC: Financial Industrial Complex NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex MIC: Military Industrial Complex CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature. The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector). Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting. The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
    3
  165. Very informative regarding the various standpoints. Thank you for the upload 🙂
    3
  166. They did the same in Korea. Carve it up into two parts without asking the people. Set the people up against each other. Create a "forever war" potential. It's divide and rule, implemented as "Koreo 2.0" in Europe, again...
    3
  167. He's explaining the observed realities which evolve out of a proactive strategy of "divide and rule," by the hegemon. 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. It does not matter if the actors are aware that they are aiding and abetting a divide-and-rule strategy of power they are probably not aware of. What matters is that The American Century looooves capitalism, corporatism, and democracy, because it offers the unending flow of those in search of profit and in search of personal/systemic POWER, who then cooperate with the hegemony at the expense of the own populations. For the "empire" ruling in the background divide-and-rule means advantages on multiple tiers resulting out of the fact that it is implemented (an example here, are the actions of Sir Lawrence of Arabia, who might or might not have known of his "role" in the Empire's divide-and-rule strategy of the Levant, and ME around WW1).
    3
  168.  @PerceivedREALITY999  My answer to you also just disappeared...
    3
  169. History did not start on Oct 7th 2023, nor did it start on 24th Febr 2022.
    3
  170. Those intent on exploitation used the "fighting slavery"-pretext as excuse and as a narrative to hide the territorial and systemic expansion into Africa, made possible by the invention and mass-production of quinine after the mid-19th century. You've fallen for the classical doublespeak trick, aka the "forked tongue." No, the British Empire didn't end slavery, and Europeans overwhelmingly didn't go into Africa to "save poor black people" from oppression. Why did they go there?
    3
  171. It was not a "failure" for the money focussed Military Industrial complexes of the USA/collective West.
    3
  172. Oct 11, 2023 — “If you have less empathy toward victims because of how you feel about their government, propaganda is working on you.” ~ Ben Sheehan
    3
  173. Footnote: Note that according to Machiavelli, the "princes" connected to the land and who benefited from their hereditary rule were also the GATEKEEPERS and were connected to what they saw as "theirs." In strategy and human nature, the "mercenary" are the OUTSIDERS (internationalists/globalists) who came/come or the profit and gain are NOT "connected" to the land at all, and place their own interests, often vested interests, BEFORE the people who live on the land. This narrative is distorted into meaning that "to be a Machiavelli is to be an a-hole" which is a distortion of what the book was about. Machiavelli states clearly to keep ones "princes" in POWER, for to lose them would mean losing the GATEKEEPERS, who via their own vested interests, also protect the people who live in entire regions of the world. Via Trojan Horses, "democracies" can be CAPTURED (culturally-, economically-, politically-, emotionally and militarily), as a process which can be studied as the actors reveal themselves through their actions/events.
    3
  174.  @kathycollett4318  Usually with a computer it is possible to copy from the yt comments section. Check a friend or library, then copy, paste and spread as far and wide as you please. Peace 🙏
    3
  175. Yes, agreed. But allow me to nitpick. The Arabs/semites/original inhabitants on the Arabian pinisula have always been under the thumb of an "apartheid" system. Apart = seperate = divide. Apartheid = divide-and-rule. It's been divide and ruled ever since forever. The tribal nature of the original inhabitants (Levant) greatly facilitated and enabled the strategy being employed. In recent modern history, first it was the Roman Empire, then the Turks who played them (Ottoman Empire), then the Western colonial powers after WW1 (Balfour/Sykes-Picot), and now it's their new "dividers": Washington DC. The region has been under foreign CONTROL ever since ancient history. It is CONTROL these outsiders want and they achieve it by keeping it in a condition of eternal strife.
    3
  176. Hello @PerceivedReality 👍 Keep up the good work 👋
    3
  177. Yup. Mick was "Assange 2.0". The not-so-subtle message by the empire is clear. If you oppose the "powerful" with "truth bombs", the empire will destroy your carreer... The "empire" uses the strategy of "pulling the rug" out from beneath individual "dissent". The very thing the empire claims to have fought wars for ("individual freedom of speech").
    3
  178.  @willbass2869  The issue with brevity is that the meaning of words have been changed to distract from the actual events. In other words, doublespeak. Example: Terrorist = someone against my "-ism". Freedom Fighter = someone fighting for my "-ism" or "my friend".
    3
  179. ​ @katong1953  Thank you for reading. Please copy and spread the core message which is that the USA/collective West has always caused or lain the foundation of everything they end up "fighting". Please spread, since these are things I read myself, written by others. Please share our common message. 👍🙏
    3
  180. ​The BRICS nations and their populations must guard against the divide-and-rule strategy which the USA/collective West is using on them, now, as we speak. Please aid in spreading this message. 🙏👍
    3
  181. It reappeared just a few seconds ago. Maybe use a different setting (latest comments vs top comments). cheers
    3
  182.  @the_famous_reply_guy  In the study of conflict resulting out of the migration of large cultural groups, usually as part of agendas or expansion. What is presently happening, as a part of a wider conflict going back at least 100 years, is the immigration of a superior culture of lighter skin-colored cultural ingroup, injected onto a darker skin-colored cultural outgroup. The favored ingroup coming from outside (people born elsewhere) received land, livestock, and a home of sorts, all based on the advantage of having "friends in the right places", and having more resources at hand for the own aims and goals. In return, they become what the USA did during their own expansion into North America, the "farms/forts", which if "shot at" would always be "just defended", or "shooting back" (see below essays for more examples of this strategy or "101 playbook of imperialism" for expansion of the own systems). The "settler colonist" (system) is the TOOL of expansion. While the existing population was squeezed out of strategically vital areas one step at a time (arable farmland, for example, or sources of water), the faraway controlling political movement sought widespread support from whoever would give it, specifically from very imperialistic indoctrinated "friendly systems", for the own expansive goals. Real or at least tacid support for the "own -ism" is bought from large organisation, like the UN for example. People who came with the well-wishing of large portions of the "ingroup"-supporters ("-isms"), or at least indifferent/ignorant of the real issues and therefore largely complacent, created a culture of "settler colonialism", creating a "storyline" that if such a settler colonist is attacked in any way, that they will be "just defending themselves". The original imperialist expansion (industrial/financial/argricultural/mining/raw materials/ideological, etc.), of "settler colonialism" being the cause of conflict, is simply never questioned at all... Of course, one does not need a cristal ball, or be a Nostradumbass in order to predict that conflict was bound to take place, in view of previously unfolding similar series of historical events, in other places in the world, where people with an "-ism", emboldened by a feeling of cultural superiority, following a prescibed set of steps as strategy, in order to gain a superior political/economic position for the own "tribe" (tribalism). When one studies the various perspectives about human conflict, one can't help wondering who is most to blame. Is it: 1) the various enablers and deciders as executive powers? (leaderships) 2) those who saw financial opportunities to exploit, specifically in case troubles/strife ensued? (opportunists) 3) those who wished to proliferate themselves, advance personal carriers, or similar free-riders, but otherwise had no real POWER as executives? (political expediency of choosing sides) 4) the huddled masses without land, who decided to take the lifeline thrown at them, despite knowing that they were imposing on another already existing indigenous population? (chosen ingroup) 5) the indigenous population, mostly equaly "huddled masses" just trying to eke out a living, but who were never asked what they wanted for themselves as collective? (chosen outgroup) 6) any other, or a different order, since this is an open question It should not be too difficult to conclude that responsibility for the resulting conflict goes pretty much in the order of 1 to 5, with those mostly responsible being the few "deciders" (as 1). These should not only have been in the position to foresee trouble ahead, but also to acknowledge these foreseeable events, and then search alternatives. Only... ...the unfolding series of events did not take place in the Middle East, and did not involve London, the British Empire, France, or any other western power. The conflict mentioned in the first paragraphs, has been taking place with gathering momentum over the past 100 years, is taking place in Irian Jaya (Indonesia) of course. I hope nobody concluded is was about some other place somewhere else in the world... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_conflict The "strategic encroachment" as part of such "outgroup"-agendas must be searched for... "During the late 20th century Indonesia resettled 300,000 farmers to the restive province of West Papua, transforming its demographic composition. Such resettlement, or ‘transmigration’, was quite limited until the mid-1980s and restricted to only certain areas of West Papua. What accounts for the incidence of transmigration? Using a panel of all transmigration, ethnic cleansing and demographic change data in each regency of West Papua during 1964-2000 compiled from confidential government sources, I show that, after an aborted Papuan uprising in 1984, Indonesia cleansed and settled its border with Papua New Guinea to forestall cross-border insurgent activity. I then show that after the Grasberg gold mine was opened in 1990 Indonesia cleansed and settled the area around the mine." from the introduction of "Indonesian Settler Colonialism in West Papua", 10 Jun 2020, Lachlan McNamee, University of California, Los Angeles According to the "NIMBY"-principle, most people actually do not care much about unfolding events far away, so are most likely completely unaware that there even is a simmering conflict somewhere else. According to "NIMBY" however, should the shoe be on the other foot, and the own existence becomes "encroached upon" by an outside migrating group (immigrants/refugees), all of similar background, it doesn't take long for the observed "unease" to begin. Firstly, in the form of lots of moaning and groaning, then if no political action changing the course of events results, the "steps" gradually increase in the level of violence exerted. Firstly there would be randomly organized protests, then larger forms of civil unrest, more property damage, more arson, the first deaths, and so on, and so on, until there is a large scale revolution. Any wise political leadership will always head off such series of unfolding events, but there must be a recognition that action is called for. If not, the series of events always follow predictable patterns, regardless of the tier of events, the cultural background of those involved, the gods these people pray to, the ideology, or the language spoken. rgds
    3
  183. "When two neighbouring countries fight each other, just know the USA visited one." - Nelson Mandela (Region: Southern Africa/Big picture timestamp: Cold War). The statement is not quite correct. When two neighbours fight each other, just know that an empire has been there previously. It's the old joke that "If two fish are fighting, the British Empire has been there." It is a truism about imperialism in general, and how divide-and-rule works. Set up neighbours against each other, using a variety of ever-consistent techniques and strategies. With absolute certainty, the tribal leaders of Europe joked the same way about the Roman Empire, openly flaunting their "Pax Romana" whilst in the background covertly favoring one "neighbor", whilst setting them up against the others, using whatever reasoning it wanted. Outsiders will come to a state (also covertly politically or via NGOs as the strategy of "cultural- and political capture"), and these outsiders try to lay down the foundation for division by setting up the "new-found friend" against its neighbours and if it is unsuccessful in one "state" (status quo), it will simply go to the neighbours and try the same. The more neighbours, the more chances of a successful division of powers, which is beneficial to the "divider". Because if these neighbours all end up fighting, the "divider" vacuums off gains (of various kinds) in the background. Such implemented and leveraged divisions do not necessarily stem from evil intent, since most of the participants in a divide-and-rule strategy have absolutely no idea that they have become "actors" in a great game, the scope of which they remain ignorant of. Even those with good intentions (political doves) can create division. No amount of agreements, accords, negotiation or skills will ever stop the "dividers", for nothing they sign will stop their divisive ways. Any resources-rich region of the planet like the Ukraine or West Asia, where the interests run deep, is a perfect example of the above, which is globally practiced today. The only thing which changed between the Roman Empire and the current times is technology, which vastly shrunk the world and the REACH of the controlling empire.
    3
  184. Most of our history is too narrow, and can only serve as data to figure out the big picture. After around 1900, Europe lost its top tier position as global leaders because their leaders could not find a suitable balance of power between the states, which was equally acceptable for all. Note that with Versailles and many other bad choices, ALL Europeans lost. WW1 and WW2 was one struggle which roots go back a 1,000 years: the battle for continental supremacy between France and The Holy Roman Empire, with Russia off to one side of that, and Great Britain off to the other. This is how the quote "peace for 20 years" (Foch) should be interpreted. WW1 and WW2 was simply another "30 years war" with the difference being that the naval powers (GB and the USA) stepped in and supported France as the "favored nation" as a proactive divide-and-rule strategy of intended global control and domination (see footnote). In the end ALL Europeans lost and became subjected to the American Century, whose post-WW2 Truman Doctrine was simply more divide-and-rule, to drive a rift between Europeans. After the Cold War this "rift" was simply "ruled" to be further east, and the desirable status quo of "Europeans set up against each other per outside ruling" was moved a few hundred miles eastwards. The new "Iron Curtain" which soon be declared, under some or other fancy term. Read Mackinder (1904), which found its logical continuation with the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine, and Churchill's Iron Curtain. ------------- Footnote: My sincere thanks to a fellow youtuber (@realvipul) who thought my one of essays explaining the divide-and-rule/conquer strategy of power was "TLDR" or too complicated and therefore ran it through AI... "The comment discusses the concept of "divide and rule" as a strategy employed by powerful entities to maintain control. It argues that human systems are inherently chaotic due to the complexity of human nature, making them susceptible to manipulation through division. The example of the Roman Empire's conquest of Britain around the year "0" is used to illustrate how this strategy works, emphasizing that the motivations of individual collaborators are less important than the overall effect of division in enabling the empire's dominance. The comment then extends this analysis to the American Century, suggesting that the same strategy was used to exert influence over Europe. It highlights that the goal is to create maximum division among opposing groups while maintaining unity within the ruling power. The comment criticizes the media and political leaders for perpetuating a cycle of lies and wars, often under the guise of opposing territorial expansion while simultaneously promoting systemic expansion. In essence, the comment argues that the "divide and rule" strategy is a fundamental tactic employed by powerful entities to maintain control, and that understanding this strategy is crucial for comprehending historical events and current geopolitical dynamics."
    3
  185. ​ @Irene-im8xi  True, because in grand strategy the "friend" and the "proxy" are virtually the same role, and these "friends/proxies" are sacrificed within the divide-and-rule technique, for own systemic gains.
    3
  186. He is not "all over the place," but on the contrary, is explaining the way systems use strategy, without all the hubris, jingoism, bias, ect., thrown in.
    3
  187. The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. 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... 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-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
    3
  188. You've already given the answer to your own question: If a population believes it has always been "the right side of history" as the default setting, there is no way to convince them as such a universal majority opinion, that they might be wrong...
    3
  189. Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century. The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021). This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?" The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule. Systemic/ideological expansion into: - Eastern Europe. - Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route) - Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route) Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired. "The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner"). It is today, as it was since 1776. Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemon. Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing. Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck... Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST? Foster division. Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove... These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quite or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories." Then... 1) Divide-and-gain. If not. 2) Divide-and-control. If not. 3) Divide-and-rule. If not. 4) Divide-and-conquer. If not. 5) Divide-and-destroy. ...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing. The Albion. The Albion 2.0. The USA can gain somewhere else? Greenland. (Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template") Wait for it...
    3
  190. Set up Europe for failure, then "Pivot to Asia", and play the same game here...
    3
  191. 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 coordinated 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). 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. 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, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy). The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians. 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, 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: favoratism. "Favor" one "empire" (in this case France and GB) above others...temporarily. 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 "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, 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. Some of the rare historical anomalies are Chamberlain (Munich 1938) or Boris Jonson (Finland/Sweden 2022) because try as one might, one cannot find any other strategic incentive for these missions, other than the noble cause and an effort keep the peace, in the face of previous total failure. 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 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. Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else. 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.
    3
  192. We should never forget that Mearsheimer famously "predicted" the war in the Ukraine, not only because it was clear how the "encirled" react (Russia), but also because it is clear how the "encirclers" (the "buck passers" USA/EU/NATO) proact in strategy. The intention is to "morph" the smaller systems to become the tools of encirclement (proxies), or "unsinkable aircraft carriers" for the own systemic control or expansion. Set up others for failure or even death in the worse case scenario, then frame the entire story as "protecting freedom/friends/democracy" or whatever story the masses will buy...
    3
  193.  @marylander3798  In power dynamics, the tail does not "wag the dog,* and it is in fact deeply "antisemitic" in the truest sense of the word (bigotry) to imply that it is the tiny little power (Israel) which controls the bigger power: it appeals to all kinds of stereotypes about the "typical jew," and it is false. Prejuduce, bigotry, and stereotypical worldviews make it easy to hide the hegemony's strategy. In power dynamics, it is the "dogs" which "wag the tail," and Israel is a tool of Washington DC's hegemonial ambitions in the ME, which uses Israel as an extension of its own POWER.
    3
  194.  @earthlingthings  Far longer than 75 years... What is happening today, as "stage x", is simply a continuation of a ongoung strategy, and it is nothing new. For 100 years, settler colonists (Irgun, Lehi, Palmach, etc.) cooperating with the hegemon, carried out such practices of harassment, trying to coerce the original inhabitants to flee so they could occupy the land. A hundred years ago the British Empire dispatched psychos like Orde Wingate (Special Night Squads) who took pleasure in random shootings, or waterboarding opposition to the British Empire in oil, sending the tortured back to their villages to report about the actions of their oppressors.
    3
  195. Proves again, that the militarist mind is in the head, not in the form of the funny cap, on the heads of the militarists...
    3
  196. @ The CIA office. C enter for the I deologically A ffiliated 🙂
    3
  197. In general: agreed. Only minor issue is that analysts always talk about "US mistakes." (5:00 minutes in) If you have a geographical advantage, you don't make "mistakes" but use old, proven Roman strategies. This is divide and rule. One takes over a sphere of influence one slow step at a time. When there is a response, blame the side being encroached upon, and use any rhetoric from the other side as excuse for further encroachment.
    3
  198.  @neutralitystudies  Hello Pascal I hope the OP sees your reply, but I fear his notification settings might be switched off. My analysis of what the OP states as his observation of the observed events these past few years, is as follows: Those who have power constantly preach the "rules based society", but the rules they preach, are nothing like the "rules" they themselves follow as guidelines... They themselves follow "rules" like the "48 Rules of Power/Robert Greene", which are not meant to overcome the divide and rule setup of any society, even democracies, but to make use of the divisions between systems, amplify these divisions if useful, or gloss over such divisions if beneficial for the own gain, in order to win personally or for the own favored system. For those who follow such "rules", hypocrisy or lies are not an "oversight", or "a mistake", or "accidental", but a strategy of power (see footnote). Hypocrites draw other hypocrites into their own circles of power: by being openly hypocritical, a hypocrite exposes himself/herself, and can therefore be approached by systems of gain. This is greatly aided by media, or the internet, incl. "free speech", since hypocrisy and lying is a "protected right". Creating entire entities of professional hypocrites and professional spinners, framers, and liars thereby establishing a hierarchy of hypocrites/deceivers, especially prevallent in systems of power and gain, like politics (incl., but not limited to "liberal democracies"), and all forms of structures with an intent of gain motivation (incl., but not limited to capitalist gain models). All of these attract a potential "<20% psychos" which are proven to exist in the top echelons of power in all "intent of gain systems". Such systems also attract natural bullies, as per observable reality. Hypocrites, narcissistic behaviour, bullying, and Machiavellianism might cause unease in the overwhelming number of good people in every society, but these good people are usually not the ones "gatekeeping" (also a bully tactic) the most influencial political/corporate job openings, which are not voted for by the populations of "Western-style"-democracies, or in corporations which then proceed to buy their own favorable laws (lobbying, influence) and buy corruptable politicians in the "legalized bribes"-systems they had previously lobbied for... Being openly hypocritical and deceptive is a "rule" considered a virtue, in some circles of power. Calling these people out in an effort of shaming is pointless, since they have no shame. Footnotes/key words for further research: * 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths * Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy * The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism * Dr. Namie's research concerneing the 4 bully types of human being Since all human systems of gain (incl. politics and capitalism) are made up of human beings, the above research can be scaled up to any tier, right up to the level of states/empires. Those who justify (almost) everything which happened in the past (a divide and rule world), will justify the present. Because the "divide and rule"-world never ended... Cheers, Ralph
    3
  199. It "started" a long time before that. Japan is actually "history rhyming". The first time they decided to become the Western Imperial "buck catchers" was in the late-19th century, when they were employed by the naval powers (mainly GB and the USA) to cut off Russia's advance into Asia. Japan, due to its size, was easily employed as tool.
    3
  200.  @geoeconomics5629  Yes. So true. In a nutshell, to keep Central European "brains" (technology, innovation), and Eastern European "muscle" (raw materials, manpower) divided with rulings has been the key objective for the outsiders, for more that 200 years.
    3
  201. 9:06 Money is always a means to steer people in political systems, via the allocation of resources. It's the resources which are limited, not the money.
    3
  202. The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a "fact"? Because it actually happened. If an actual fair treaty had ended WW1 in 1919, there would not have been a "WW2" and none of that which followed in the wake of an unfair end, would have ever happened. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever... Today? History is repeating. Albion 2.0 Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends". After a short halt, the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s. Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule. - Eastern Europe. - Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance). - Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance). This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an "IMbalance of powers" as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico. Trying to remain neutral in the face of a grand strategy by global players is futile if the players intend to outwit each other by using people as "tools" on their "chessboards." The bigger picture can be distorted, and reality can be manipulated to deceive millions of people. You are an integral part of the games, wanted or not. The history of the encirclement policy of a Eurasian superpower repeated itself after 1990. The intent of the hegemonic power is to "transform" the smaller systems into tools of encirclement (proxies) or "unsinkable aircraft carriers" for its own systemic control or expansion. Then produce the entire story as "protecting freedom/friends/democracy," a "fight for freedom," or some other story that sounds good in Hollywood (a "bread and circuses" strategy for the domestic masses). The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story". For the "divider," the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere. "How" and "that" are different premises... The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategist who openly admit this. The conflagration that took place after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established were: 1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars. set up against: 2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900. The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally: Divide-and-gain (power for own systems). If not. Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground). If not. Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.). If not. Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever). If not. Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division). This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War, with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy o divide-nd-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they "feel" better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the "logic" of causality where there is a trench waiting for you...
    3
  203.  @РафаэльСаркисянц-ъ2т  YT is deleting comments...
    3
  204. Yes, the oldest game: those who wished to gain from unity, vs. those who wished to gain from division. The graphic depiction of Yin and Yang is not only valid about the "good vs bad" dichotomy (Taoism), but can also apply to the model of "UNITY/CONCORD" vs "DIVISION/DISCORD". As the model of Yin and Yang states, there is always some good in the bad, and always some bad in the good, and equilibrium is hard to achieve since human nature tends to allow the pendulum to swing past the point of equilibrium, towards the other pole. In the same way, every system based on division per default, always contains some elements of forces of unity. And, the other way around: systems based on the default setting that unity is the main principle, will always contain elements of division. When studying thousands of man-made systems, one reaches the conclusion that some are more "top down" UNITY with some lower tiered "freedoms" allowed in order to keep the peace (European monarchies, as examples), whilst others are more "bottom up freedoms" with restrictions applying (France, after the French Revolution). Both meet in the middle somewhere (Yin/Yang), and then try to constantly balance powers between the various factions. Exemplary: A "Republic" is already a "meet-in-the-middle" approach, since it divides power on multiple tiers as political framework or structure with a desirable pyramidal shape of POWER to ensure bottom-up freedoms do not become unrulable. CHINESE CENTURY OF SHAME (outsiders' interests = great market, to be divvied up) In the 19th- and first half of the 20th century, the local political forces in China had to compete with outside dividers which had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER. The local strategists used old strategies to try to re-introduce a fully sovereign China. A union which could be free of outside meddling, completely independent and which was there for Chinese interests first and foremost, and not at the behest of outside imperialist powers and their proxy rule and domination. During these roughly 100 years, the European imperialist powers were later joined by the USA and Japanese imperialist powers, and various competing ideologies, all continuously using China as battleground for an entire century. Trying to overcome the OUTSIDE DIVIDERS by playing the same game of more divisions, with yet more divided Chinese systems, is of course a dumb strategy, because the DIVIDERS will always win. If weak, and while weak, the outside dividers will simply politically capture the rising powers, and morph or incorporate these. Therefore, in order to overcome the outside division, those searching for more internal unity will choose a top-down form of unity, not the bottom-up form of division. You don't fight fire with fire, but with water. One doesn't fight division with more division, if the intention is more unity. Note that the vital passages to understand the interaction of STRATEGIES and SYSTEMS are highlighted and cannot be ignored for the sake of anybody's feelings. Cause: Already existing divides and outside meddling as divide-and-rule strategy of power and their local proxies (later stages: Chinese Nationalists). Effect: Top down enforced unity, to squeeze foreign influence out, with outside support as the communists (Maoists supported by Moscow) of imposed unity. Both SIDES carried out acts of extreme brutality, atrocities, crimes against humanity, and which only differed in scope and means of implementation to achieve an own aim (DIVISION or UNITY in the region in question). The UNIFIERS won most of the battles and squeezed the outside dividers out of most of the region in question, except one province: Formosa/Taiwan. STATUS today: UNDECIDED/SLIGHT STATE OF DIVISION PERSISTS THERE IS THE TEMPLATE Unity in a region of the planet, for the benefit of those who live here, versus division by outside forces, for the benefit of outsiders and their local support. Take this template anywhere you wish, and it will rhyme. This is regardless of the point on the timeline, or the region of the planet. All it depends upon is the POWER of the opposing forces, and the template will become either MORE violent, or less violent. Both or all SIDES carry out acts of extreme brutality, atrocities, crimes against humanity, and which only differ in scope and means of implementation to achieve an own aim (DIVISION or UNITY in the region in question). THE ME DURING THE COLD WAR (interests = oil, strategic value) The local political forces had to compete with outside dividers which had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER during the 19th and 20th centuries, right through to today (current events). The local strategists used old strategies to try to re-introduce a fully sovereign Middle East. A union which could be free of outside meddling, completely independent and which was there for local interests first and foremost, and not at the behest of outside imperialist powers and their proxy rule and domination. During these roughly 100 years, the European imperialist powers were later joined by the USA, and later Soviet and Western ideologies, all continuously using West Asia as battleground. Trying to overcome the OUTSIDE DIVIDERS by playing the same game of more divisions, with yet more divided systems, is of course a dumb strategy, because the DIVIDERS will always win. If weak, and while weak, the outside dividers will simply politically capture the rising powers, and morph or incorporate these. Therefore, in order to overcome the outside division, those searching for more internal unity will choose a top-down form of unity, not the bottom-up form of division. You don't fight fire with fire, but with water. One doesn't fight division with more division, if the intention is more unity. Cause: Already existing divides and outside meddling as divide-and-rule and the old established colonial structure Western puppets. Effect: Top down enforced unity, to squeeze foreign influence out. Arab nationalism (or MAGA for the Middle East "Make Arabia Great Again"), a secular (note, not favouring any of the many local pre-existing religious or ethnic groups/factions) form of imposed unity, for example the Baathist Party in Iraq and Syria (still ongoing, which explains current events). Both SIDES carried out, and still do, acts of extreme brutality, atrocities, crimes against humanity, and which only differed in scope and means of implementation to achieve an own aim (DIVISION or UNITY in the region in question). The DIVIDERS won most of the battles and squeezed the inside unifiers out of most of the region in question. STATUS today: UNDECIDED/EXTREME DIVISION PERSISTS EUROPE/EURASIA (outsiders' interests = a potential seat of POWER if united, therefore to be kept as divided as possible) During the 20th century the local political forces had to compete with outside dividers which had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER, right through to today (current events). The local strategists used old strategies to try to re-introduce a fully sovereign Europe/Eurasia. A union which could be free of outside meddling, completely independent and which was there for European/Eurasian interests first and foremost, and not at the behest of outside powers and their proxy rule and domination. During these roughly 125 years (1900 to today), the European imperialist powers were later joined by the USA and Japanese imperialist powers, and later Soviet and Western ideologies, all continuously using Eurasia as battleground. Trying to overcome the OUTSIDE DIVIDERS by playing the same game of more divisions, with yet more divided Eurasian systems, is of course a dumb strategy, because the DIVIDERS will always win. If weak, and while weak, the outside dividers will simply politically capture the rising powers, and morph or incorporate these. Therefore, in order to overcome the outside division, those searching for more internal unity will choose a top-down form of unity, not the bottom-up form of division. You don't fight fire with fire, but with water. One doesn't fight division with more division, if the intention is more unity. Cause: Already existing divides and outside meddling as divide-and-rule. Effect: Top down enforced unity, to squeeze foreign influence out. During the final stages of this struggle, which are termed "WW1 and WW2", all SIDES carried out acts of extreme brutality, atrocities, crimes against humanity, and which only differed in scope and means of implementation to achieve an own aim (DIVISION or UNITY in the region in question). STATUS today: UNDECIDED/DIVISION PERSISTS The patterns of unity vs. division always rhyme. No, they will not always be 100% the same (see Yin/Yang). Therefore any statement claiming that history repeats is incorrect. There are always many local variations often dictated by geography, population, ideologies, religions, etc. TODAY The entire system they still favor in the USA and collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often repeated nice-sounding storyline.
    3
  205.  @william6223  Do you stand for the self-determination of the people of Crimea? It does not matter how you answer, since the strategists in Washington DC (collective West) disagree, making them hypocrites, which is ALWAYS a divide-and-rule strategy of power.
    3
  206.  @william6223  Yes, as the OP states as theory, "And, the other way around: systems based on the default setting that unity is the main principle (Washington DC/USA), will always contain elements of division (First nations/Reservations/self-determination)." Those who demand your compliance though, will want you to bow down to their centralist flag, and chant their slogans. If you personally see things differently, and put your own people first, you become the "enemy" in the radical conformist central power mindset (a fair portion of the "USA USA USA"-slogan chanters).
    3
  207. I'm afraid that we, in the "collective West" have never told ourselves the "truth."
    3
  208. The template can serve as exemplary for all these white settler colonists. The strategy was "farms/forts" and a systemic, slow advance into the lands of ingenious peoples all over the world. Same happened in North America, Australia, the Levant, South America, Southern Africa, etc. Broken promises, broken treaties, looking for excuses to make the next 'step' (ratchet principle). The only places the strategy of slow ponderous expansion failed was where the local systems were too numerous or organized (East Asia).
    3
  209.  @os3984  Yes, but at the core Brzezinski's book (1999) is a repeat of Mackinder's Heartland Theory (Pivot of History/1904) which is that if Eurasia, or large parts of Central and Eastern Europe should ever forge an unbreakable alliance, or enjoy good relations, that it could economically and militarily overpower the so-called geopolitical "rimlands" (USA and the British Empire at the time, around 1900). These "rimlands" relied on naval power for global domination and economic supremacy, but a Eurasian unity or alliance could have dominated Eurasia and Africa via unblockable land power. It was at the heart of Washington DC, and London (British Empire) policies to always try to avoid such unity any which way possible, using a variety of diplomatic and military techniques, to the point of "preventive wars".
    3
  210. Oh...it is. European states (NATO) are still being used as proxies to implement a global strategy of "divide and rule/control", led by Washington DC. Unless Europeans can break free, every European problem will become a world problem (even if only secondary and tertiary effects).
    3
  211.  @VickiNikolaidis  Thank you for reading.
    3
  212.  @tjoeptjoeptjoep  The problem is that the more people find out how insidious this strategy is, and how their elites implement it, the more they avert their eyes and end up doing nothing.
    3
  213.  @Treasure_hunter_21  It is difficult to find channels where to post these days: around 70-80% of all yt channels immediately "ghost ban" my short essays. Thank you for reading, and seeing the logic and reasoning behind. Cheers 🙏
    3
  214.  @garyddlewis3067  Says a specialist in "oneliners."
    3
  215.  @mousiebrown943  True, but it did not only "start" after WW2. It "started" on neighbors directly after independence in 1776, and went global (past North and South America) after 1898 already.
    3
  216. Olaf Cum Ex Scholtz...fits a pattern.
    3
  217. The annexation was an effect, not a cause. What caused the annexation was the encirclement strategy of the Entente powers, starting with GB-France in 1904, and Russia joining up 1907. Serbia was used as "buck catcher" by bigger powers, as a "useful friend", and Belgrade had a "Greater Serbia"-agenda for Bosnia.
    3
  218. Not at all. At the core it is about one entity, not wishing to live at the whim of another entity. One can even draw historical parallels to Ireland, not wishing to live within the UK/British Empire during the 19th/20th century. In this respect, who supports who and in what ways, and more importantly, who does not support such an independence, is the study of geopolitics/grand strategy.
    3
  219. I wonder how many pairs of shoes the new first lady has gathered so far. 🤔 By the time it gets to "3,000" they'll flee. 😬 My expert analysis of US puppets. 😂
    3
  220.  @tamimq5895  Then you are on a good track. These channels place the systems and the strategies in the foreground, and try to disregard the "clutter" caused by human emotions. What they are however not doing sufficiently IMHO is exactly "HOW" the dividers set entire systems of human being up against each other. Here's my contribution to that: The cool thing about divide and rule is that according to Lindy's Law, things which have been around for a looooong time, tend to stick around for a lot longer. Once upon a time, a man set out to defeat the divide and rule system of a great empire: By a series of bottom-up opposition techniques and measures, known collectively as "Quit India", the advocates set about creating unity from the bottom up, by unravelling the divide and rule system of privileges afforded to a few, by the hegemon. "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869 – 1948), popularly known as Mahatma Gandhi, was an Indian lawyer,[4] anti-colonial nationalist[5] and political ethicist[6] who employed nonviolent resistance to lead the successful campaign for India's independence from British rule,[7] and to later inspire movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. The honorific Mahātmā (Sanskrit: "great-souled", "venerable"), first applied to him in 1914 in South Africa, is now used throughout the world.[8][9]" (Wiki) Born into relative obscurity, to Time Person of the Year (1930), over time wielding an incredible amount of power, by simply preaching justice in the face of injustice, and he was later crucified by his very own people. The Empire in the shape of "Pontius Pilate" washed its hands in innocence, and as supreme power, let those locals whom the empire had enabled "take care of matters": a fine outcome for the Empire. The "proxies" did the bidding of those who wielded the true power. The instruments of power did the screaming and the shouting, protected their privileges, and even killed each other... Strip away the ancillary details, the ideology, the hubris, zeolotry and jingoism, and the political situations and the solutions sought by a few advocates for freedom and self-determination were remarkably similar. The stories "rhyme". Jesus of Nazareth (+/- 4 BC to 30 AD), popularly known as Mesiah, was a Jewish carpenter, anti-colonial humanist (aka "a hippie") and political ethicist who employed nonviolent resistance to lead the unfortunately unsuccessful campaign of opposition to Roman rule, and to later inspire movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. The honorific Jesus, only applied long after his death, is now used throughout the world. Perceived as a threat by the systems of power. Wiki: "He (edit: Jesus) was arrested and tried by the Jewish authorities,[24] turned over to the Roman government, and crucified on the order of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Jerusalem." A perfect description of how the divide and rule system operates. Set up "proxies" against each other. Favor some locals, above others, and afford them rank, privilege and limited powers. Simplest thing in the world. What all divide and rule systems have in common, is a plethora of the willing: Those who'd gladly throw the first stone. Scale it up to any level of power, of any tier of systems ranged against other systems... It's been around for a loooooong time, and it would be foolish to think it simply vanished into thin air. Nothing any human being has ever come up with, has ever eclipsed the power it wields over millions of minds. Critical question: Even if Jesus did not know what he was really up against, and only wished to stand up to what he was witnissing as the divide and rule/conquer system of the Roman Empire, why do you think he advised to "love neighbors" (neighboring systems) and "love your enemies"? (in other words, those who are the most difficult to "love"). In case you are from the Islamic system, once created by the British Empire to "steer against each other" as "lines on the map" set up during and after WW1, then please remember that Jesus is a common prophet of all Abrahamic Religions, and his words should be considered as valid for all equaly. The "dividers" were the empires, which set people up against each other. The Roman Empire = The British Empire mirrored each other, in the "techniques" they used to control millions or subjects. Of course, the intention of any divide and rule system is to make people "hate their neighbors" and to "create enemies" of systems for the benefit of the "dividers" who skim off enormous gain in the form of power and influence. The way to beat the "divide and rule" system of any hegeomony, is to do the exact opposite of one's own emotions. It is the emotions the "divide and rule"-strategy of the outside powers are going to concentrate on. The own individual emotions is what the "dividers" have focussed on throughout history. Therefore, overcoming these emotions is the first step. cheers
    3
  221. The initial "dirty trick" is called "imperialism". That means drawing lines between people who were never asked what the wanted for themselves.
    3
  222. ​ @garyddlewis3067  Aw cute. The "pigeon on the chessboard" -behaviour. In case you don't know what that means, I suggest searching the term. It is predictable...
    3
  223. Excellent discussion. The "big picture" is even bigger than discussed here, but even has historical parallels in strategy. Japan, after the mid-19th century, in 1951, in 1960 (MOFA), and just two days ago (Wednesday). Snuggling up to power. History repeating. Using Japan at the turn of the previous century as an example we can explain how powers with a superior geographical location and in a better financial position, and with a more advanced industrial and technological stand, can build up proxies and then encourage them to do the bidding of the more poweful bigger partner. Naturally a "proxy" is always smaller than the "big brother" (benefactor in strategy) so that offers a convenient opening for the narrative of "only protecting weaker people", by simply changing the perspective. Proxies are often termed as "alliance partners" which need protection, but such alliances could result in a deadly outcome for the minor power, in case the power imbalance and geographical distinctions are not suitably applied in logic and reasoning. This reality of the proxy for US interests (perspective) is often bluntly stated, or blurted out as a perceived given "right" by advocates of American Exceptionalism, and has a long tradition. It is expressed by these individuals as seemingly "normal" that smaller countries or systems should do the bidding of America, but exasperation is proclaimed if it turns out these previously built up proxies have own interests. A current example of this is stated by Congressman Dan Crenshaw (see below footnote) seemingly thinking it is "normal" other human beings in other systems (Ukraine) should be considered worthwhile "investment potential" to further US interests. Japan, of course another "useful tool" (strategy) on one axis of advance of the system America, as "going west" after her War of Independence, and not stopping when it got to the Pacific Ocean. The system kept on going towards the Far East in a systemic way: That of gain for the own entities in the form of institutions and corporations, even if not necessarily always with the intent of direct political rule. The other axis was of course mainly going south into the Americas, with the Monroe Doctrine as a soft power reciprocal engagement of systems using strategies and "tools" here too (like Simon Bolivar, was of course a "proxy" to weaken the Spanish Empire ), with the clear advantage going to the major power, Washington DC. After the generally considered "start" of American Imperialism with the Spanish-American War, Washington DC took on a European power for the first time, even though at the time this fit in perfectly with the narrative of "protection" for the unfortunate weak peoples of Central America (battle of the minds), whilst still fitting the premise of "going further westwards" as seen from the perspective of North America, and geopolitics. Note that Winston Churchill later candidly pointed out what "protecting poor people" really meant***. "Protection" often only meant the "proxy" for own gain, as Churchill clearly understood, since that is what all European empires also claimed to be doing. Desirable strategically located Spanish overseas territories for military bases, like the Philippenes or Guam, lay on the most direct trade routes across the Pacific... Apparently history is not a lesson some people will ever learn from. The historical examples as given by wiser Irish leaders, who refused to become proxies as they fought for own goals, lost on these strategists. And so history repeats: - A closed system, lured out of isolation...check. - A kindled imperialism, hoping for territorial gain...check. - A tool which could be used to encroach on the "big brother's" rival...check. - An instrument of power, which would burn for the advantage of the stronger power...check. - Massively increased military spending...check. - Another system's tax payers, bearing the burden...check. - Ambitious local leaders striving to build a large, modern navy...yet again. Check... History repeating.
    3
  224. Yes, excellent. But HOW did the USA achieve this "throne" of power?
    3
  225. Proxy wars are always the overt implementation, and highly visible signature move, of imperialism.
    3
  226. The concept of racism can easily be incorporated into a comprehensive divide-and-rule strategy. BRITISH EMPIRE Growing up in South Africa, one is quickly introduced to the concept of "dual loyalties" in the form of a joke or a cartoon: that of the "soutpiel". Every child knew it, and joked about it. I'll leave to the reader to ask a South African friend what that means. In a nutshell, it is the dual loyalty of people living in Africa, with their loyalties divided between Europe and Africa, meaning that their...ahem...the "future" was left dangling in the Atlantic Ocean. Every child in South Africa knew it, but not every child understood it. "SOUTPIEL": A GRAND STRATEGY/GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS Note that first and foremost, the jokers in South Africa actually became a victim of their own misguided logic: whilst the old immigrants were finger pointing at the new British immigrants with mixed loyalties from Great Britain after the 1820s, they were actually of mixed loyalty themselves on another tier. The Boers' hearts might have been beating in Africa, but in their minds they were still better Europeans as they practiced divide-and-rule themselves, over their neighbors, keeping these neighbors "down" and "out" of power. . Therefore they never managed the close relationships on equal footing, or at eye level, to those they subjected (indigenous black tribes). Then, much later they were overpowered by exactly this same misguided logic they had previously imposed on their neighbors whom they wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule and wealth (divide-and-rule onto and over the weaker local tribes, easily divided using tribalism). Unlike South American empires (Aztecs/Incas), who had not an iota of knowledge of the European Empires and their ability to REACH globally, for the South African strategists there was NO excuse. They should have known what future they themselves should have constructed for Southern Africa, because they had full access to the histories of the lands they originally came from (Europe). The "dividers" of a geographical region are hardly ever open to any suggestions of systemic UNITY/CONCORD, if they themselves GAIN from DIVISION/DISCORD, until they are later divided themselves, and subjected. The story of mankind. Can we blame the indigenous black tribes for not uniting when the first white settlers arrived in their territories? No, because just like the indigenous Native Americans, these individual tribes simply lacked the organisation and technology to observe/analyse beyond their own limited horizons. For the Boers, who HAD this knowledge, their own ideology acted as a block in the own brains. The land borders were shaped in the brains of "superior white man" (sic.), not on the map, which then later backfired. Because of a lack of combined AFRICAN UNITY, justice, power, and a fair distribution of wealth and the land, by ALL inhabitants and FOR all inhabitants (round tables), a bigger "DIVIDER" came along and ruled them all after the Second Boer War... Unlike after the French came to the Cape Colony and the Boers simply "trekked" their way out, when the British Empire came for them, there was nowhere left for the Boers to run to, since they had settled and had been surrounded on all sides by European empires (British Empire, and Portugal/Mozambique). The above can also serve as template for the Levant/Middle East, and all the artificial borders drawn by empires OVER the peoples living there, as top-down imperialistic divide-and-rule strategy. Just like Southern Africa (region), West Asia had MORE THAN sufficient resources to create a decent lifestyle for ALL the inhabitants, and therefore ask yourself the critical question "Qui Bono?" if there is an "Apartheid"-style division by a few, for the benefit of a few? (Apartheid = divide-and-rule, as top-down implementation. Apart = seperate = divide.) Southern Africa = Between the sea and the sea (Indian/Atlantic) and should have included ALL peoples who lived here. The "barriers" were in the brain, to the detriment of all when the "dividers" came. Arabian Peninsula = Between the sea and the sea (Mediterranean/Indian Oceans) and should have included ALL peoples who lived here. The "barriers" were in the brain, to the detriment of all when the "dividers" came. Historically, who gained from DIVISION? Who would have gained from a fair UNITY in Southern Africa, and on the Arabian Peninsula, when the faraway "empires" came? Surprized that the entire text is headed "BRITISH EMPIRE" but doesn't say much related to the British Empire? Oh yes, it does. Because it is exactly the same technique a bigger outside empire (American Century) employed on Europe as it overpowered the British Empire: the divide-and-rule technique, the most powerful force on the planet. --------------------------------------------- Look over the horizon. Eurasia. When carrying out a geopolitical analysis, do not make the same mistakes as Africa's black tribes, and the Boers, and Native Americans, and Incas and Aztecs, and the Chinese rulers during their "Century of Humiliation", and many many more all over the world, who all failed to look past the limited horizons open to them. YOUR "horizons" are given to you by the texts in your own history books, which intend to LIMIT your horizon, not open it. Treaty of Versailles = Divide and rule of and over neighbors (Europe/Eurasia), and the misguided logic they imposed on their neighbors whom the dividers wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule (divide-and-rule onto and over the weakened local systems who "lost the war" and which they wished to create top down). European leaders who did not understand the logic of Chesterton's fence, and destroyed what they did not understand. Who was "let in" and who was "left out" of such agreements/accords? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Chesterton%27s_fence Abrahamic Accords = Divide and rule of and over direct neighbors (Arabian Peninsula), to enable the implementation of Israel's "Clean Break" policy (divide-and-rule strategy) and the misguided logic they imposed on their neighbors whom they wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule (divide-and-rule onto and over the weaker local systems). Who was "let in" and who was "left out" of such agreements/accords? The leaders of West Asia are all "soutpiele" (divided loyalties) as long as they bow down to outside interests and value their own vested interests before the interests of the entire region (oil resources which had been turned into US/EU/Swiss assets for a few over the span of 50 years, past the well-being of the majority of the own peoples). One of the biggest misconceptions of history is the ability of the ideologically/systemically indoctrinated to view themselves as unique, whereas as a general rule their own histories rhyme with other historical events, based on the systemic analysis. The will to keep the own systems APART from their neighbors (divided by ideology and rulings) always backfires, when one is no longer "King of the Mountain" (strategy of power). By the time everything implodes, the rulers/dividers are long gone, having previously brought their own wealth and families to safe havens.
    3
  227. How did the USA go from an obscure colony to the world's nr.1 in the space of a relatively short time. To discover how it happened in "a blink of an eye" on the timeline of modern history, let's go next level. The impact of strategies on history. These strategies are universal, and it therefore does not matter who one quotes, in which era, or what level of society or politics one refers to (micro- v. macro level dynamics in hierarchies). "Observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership." Deng Xiaoping To loosely quote strategy, Washington DC just had to wait long enough until their rivals messed up. On the "empires"-level the USA's strategy starting around 1900 was fairly simple: 1) keep European powers as "divided" as possible, implemented by whatever means possible, but mainly using favoratism. 2) wait for ALL the others to fail. Would such a strategy, whether planned or the unintentional effect of prior actions guarantee a success? Answer: NO There is never a guarantee for anything in strategy, but if one has the geographical advantage (distance from squibbling Europeans, coupled with an own rising population, raw materials, a rapidly gathering industrial/financial base, increased education = increased innovation, all constituting "power"), then the US elites in their "preferred system" of corporatism could simply sit it out. What was effected by favoratism was a "pecking order" of "friends" with access to Washington DC. It does not matter how one justifies this political pecking order, because "justified" = an appeal to emotion = difficult to objectify. What is important, is THAT a pecking order of European powers with access to Washington DC was established over a relatively short time around the year 1900. Note here: A little-known detail is that one of the first US choices in this "pecking order" of European powers was actually Imperial Russia (by the Theodore Roosevelt administration). Why would the USA possibly "favor" Russia as a "choice"? My suggestion: Look at a map every now and then, and consider the European balance of power at the times, and the aims and goals of these European powers at the time... Is this an unimportant little detail, because it "did not happen"? No, this is VERY important, because it reveals strategies. Simply saying "it did not happen, therefore it is not important" is a gross misrepresentation of history, which will then result in a gross misrepresentation of current events. Any European division = a so-called "win - win" for the USA. To the USA it did not matter what happened in Europe. Whether Europeans ended up happily singing Kumbayah, or tore each other to shreds...it would be a "win" for somebody in the American Century. As long as there was no common European policy or overly powerful alliance in a comprehensive European security agreement (of sorts) which could potentially be directed at US plans to expand, there was nothing on the "elite"-level in the USA to worry about... Note also that all of the above solely deals with the "elite"-level, so there is no need for anybody to feel personally offended. Since no elites ever asked the "average American", there is also no need for any "average American" to feel offended on behalf of these decision makers, unless they choose to be. Also true, for all historical and current events, and for all citizens of all states.
    3
  228. Maybe "bankrupt" is the wrong term. When the US can no longer find buyers for it's massive debt, the US will simply refuse to pay it back. The template for that was Europe during the 1930s, when GB and France refused to pay the USA back its loans of WW1, stating they had "fought for the freedom of the world" and that the US "owed" them a cancellation of the debt, since they had fought "for the world". If we wait long enough, we'll see this repeat: the USA will simply start writing a narrative that the world owes them, and refuse to pay back anything.
    3
  229. 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." And if you lie, steal, and kill for division, then that is what you are fighting for. "We lied. We cheated. We stole" - Mike Pompeo And, may I add, they are and always were, above all PROUD of all their lies, loot, and deceit all over the globe. America's "global friends" (incl. the unceded Chinese province of "Taiwan") are burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including all semites in the MENA region) against each other. The imperialist 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) for the template. The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."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 billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual 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.
    3
  230. At 15:55 and "Morocco has brought in settlers," is an old imperial strategy, which even Rome practiced. It sounds so eerily familiar, since it is a common imperialist strategy of "greatly replacing" (😕) an indiginous population with the own ubermensch ingroup... In the study of conflict resulting out of the migration of large cultural groups, usually as part of agendas or expansion. What is presently happening, as a part of a wider conflict going back at least 100 years, is the immigration of a superior culture of lighter skin-colored cultural ingroup, injected onto a darker skin-colored cultural outgroup. The favored ingroup coming from outside (people born elsewhere) received land, livestock, and a home of sorts, all based on the advantage of having "friends in the right places", and having more resources at hand for the own aims and goals. In return, they become what the USA did during their own expansion into North America, the "farms/forts", which if "shot at" would always be "just defended", or "shooting back" (strategy from the "101 playbook of imperialism" for expansion of the own systems). The "settler colonist" (system) is the TOOL of expansion. While the existing population was squeezed out of strategically vital areas one step at a time (arable farmland, for example, or sources of water), the faraway controlling political movement sought widespread support from whoever would give it, specifically from very imperialistic indoctrinated "friendly systems", for the own expansive goals. Real or at least tacid support for the "own -ism" is bought from large organisation, like the UN for example. People who came with the well-wishing of large portions of the "ingroup"-supporters ("-isms"), or at least indifferent/ignorant of the real issues and therefore largely complacent, created a culture of "settler colonialism", creating a "storyline" that if such a settler colonist is attacked in any way, that they will be "just defending themselves". The original imperialist expansion (industrial/financial/argricultural/mining/raw materials/ideological, etc.), of "settler colonialism" being the cause of conflict, is simply never questioned at all... Of course, one does not need a cristal ball, or be a Nostradumbass in order to predict that conflict was bound to take place, in view of previously unfolding similar series of historical events, in other places in the world, where people with an "-ism", emboldened by a feeling of cultural superiority, following a prescibed set of steps as strategy, in order to gain a superior political/economic position for the own "tribe" (tribalism). When one studies the various perspectives about human conflict, one can't help wondering who is most to blame. Is it: 1) the various enablers and deciders as executive powers? (leaderships) 2) those who saw financial opportunities to exploit, specifically in case troubles/strife ensued? (opportunists) 3) those who wished to proliferate themselves, advance personal carriers, or similar free-riders, but otherwise had no real POWER as executives? (political expediency of choosing sides) 4) the huddled masses without land, who decided to take the lifeline thrown at them, despite knowing that they were imposing on another already existing indigenous population? (chosen ingroup) 5) the indigenous population, mostly equaly "huddled masses" just trying to eke out a living, but who were never asked what they wanted for themselves as collective? (chosen outgroup) 6) any other, or a different order, since this is an open question It should not be too difficult to conclude that responsibility for the resulting conflict goes pretty much in the order of 1 to 5, with those mostly responsible being the few "deciders" (as 1). These should not only have been in the position to foresee trouble ahead, but also to acknowledge these foreseeable events, and then search alternatives. Only... ...the unfolding series of events did not take place in the Middle East, and did not involve London, the British Empire, France, or any other western power. The conflict mentioned in the first paragraphs, has been taking place with gathering momentum over the past 100 years, is taking place in Irian Jaya (Indonesia) of course. I hope nobody concluded is was about some other place somewhere else in the world... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_conflict The "strategic encroachment" as part of such "outgroup"-agendas must be searched for... "During the late 20th century Indonesia resettled 300,000 farmers to the restive province of West Papua, transforming its demographic composition. Such resettlement, or ‘transmigration’, was quite limited until the mid-1980s and restricted to only certain areas of West Papua. What accounts for the incidence of transmigration? Using a panel of all transmigration, ethnic cleansing and demographic change data in each regency of West Papua during 1964-2000 compiled from confidential government sources, I show that, after an aborted Papuan uprising in 1984, Indonesia cleansed and settled its border with Papua New Guinea to forestall cross-border insurgent activity. I then show that after the Grasberg gold mine was opened in 1990 Indonesia cleansed and settled the area around the mine." from the introduction of "Indonesian Settler Colonialism in West Papua", 10 Jun 2020, Lachlan McNamee, University of California, Los Angeles According to the "NIMBY"-principle, most people actually do not care much about unfolding events far away, so are most likely completely unaware that there even is a simmering conflict somewhere else. According to "NIMBY" however, should the shoe be on the other foot, and the own existence becomes "encroached upon" by an outside migrating group (immigrants/refugees), all of similar background, it doesn't take long for the observed "unease" to begin. Firstly, in the form of lots of moaning and groaning, then if no political action changing the course of events results, the "steps" gradually increase in the level of violence exerted. Firstly there would be randomly organized protests, then larger forms of civil unrest, more property damage, more arson, the first deaths, and so on, and so on, until there is a large scale revolution. Any wise political leadership will always head off such series of unfolding events, but there must be a recognition that action is called for. If not, the series of events always follow predictable patterns, regardless of the tier of events, the cultural background of those involved, the gods these people pray to, the ideology, or the language spoken.
    3
  231. The bigger "prize" is China. If you already understand how a smaller power can be set up against a larger power, as proxy, then all you have to do is scale it up. The "big prize" will be if the USA/collective West can set up India against China, by "helping" India "stand their ground against bullying China" (sic:) which is the same narrative employed in the current Georgia context.
    3
  232. The USA had wanted to control the Pacific Rim as their "outer periphery" ever since Matthew Perry's 1853 "visit" to Tokyo Bay to coerce Japan out of isolation. Read the strategy papers. Only the American Civil War, the European powers' intentions to also enter the Asia Pacific region (era of imperialism), and the need to focus on the USA for a short respite (Era of Reconstruction), saved these island nations at the time... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era ...from the same fate of Hawaii or the Philippines ("morphed" as geopolitical staging areas, or use as imperialist proxies for US systemic expansion) after the 1890s. Reality at the time? The "tribe" Japan was simply too big, too well-organized, too unified, and too far away (technological stand during the 19th century) from being "an easy pushover" like Spain or the Kingdom of Hawaii. One could say that the Manifest Destiny didn't stop when it reached the US West Coast. It continued into the Pacific and was one of the "march routes" of US imperialism. The other being southwards into South America (Monroe Doctrine). With these "doctrines", by Washington DC, which have a long US history (there are dozens of similar examples of divide and rule) the power players stated their intentions to "rule by division", carving up these regions into smaller "divisions" which were easier to access and CONTROL (mostly with money, and favoritism). Perry stated at some point that he wished for the USA to take Formosa as US overseas territory as well, but Japan beat the USA to it (1895). Now they are back. Taiwan must be "morphed" to become a US asset and proxy to encircle China. A "next Ukraine." (Ukraine as Roman-era style "buck catcher" to encroach on Russia from Eurasia's western side). Also keep a watch-out for the advocates of imperialism, and the apologists of imperialism. Their "narratives" have not changed much over the centuries, and these narratives rhyme in time. Their techniques rhyme too.
    2
  233. 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... 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-, organisational-, 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
    2
  234. The setup in the Causasus is "smallfry". Setting up Georgia against Russia is the small prize for the American Century. If they can achieve their bigger prize, in East Asia, by setting up India against China (covertly), whilst overtly proclaiming how much they "want peace" they can gain if all others lose.
    2
  235. The "next Ukraine." The new proxy in the setup phase. The Maidan "color revolution" is being repeated as we speak, as US modus operandi. Georgia/Divide and Rule Here is what they tell you these days: Something along the lines of "Georgian leaders are all Moscow puppets," and the oppression of the poor people via a "foreign influence law," and how it is all about current leaders being Moscow stooges.... Here is what they won't tell you: That the foreign state/empire (Washington DC) which pays these protesters or their handlers, via such agencies as the CIA affiliated NED (of ex-Maidan fame) already have their own act to avoid foreign meddling in the USA. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act What the MSM won't tell you is that the foreign meddling in Georgia came FIRST, and that the act attempting to regulate this foreign meddling by Tiflis, came AFTER that. A typical act of hypocrisy and deception, as per strategy of divide and rule, to avoid continental European/Eurasian unity implemented by Washington DC, as it has been for the past 200 years, using various deceptive divide and rule techniques. First by London, and very convenient for Washington DC. Then after 1945, after the British Empire was driven into the ground using economic warfare means, directly taken over by Washington DC as explained by Michael Hudson in his book Super Imperialism. GRAND STRATEGY/GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS Georgia, and millions of Georgians, are simply being set up as the "next Ukraine." Such a setting up of neighbors against neighbors has a long history and it is considered the absolute "acme of professionalism" by Washington DC to set up others to fight and die, so that US leaders in faraway Washington DC can haggle and arguing how much the lives of these locals are worth, all in efforts to score brownie points amongst their adoring fans. To "invest" in such death, is considered the Washington DC norm, as stated by several Washington DC advocates for US global hegemony. The scale of such setups is not important, nor how it is justified: It is divide and rule. Such selective FAVORATISM is indicative of a divide and rule strategy, by an outside power. Whether it is currently Tiflis, or historically London which was being FAVORED by the POWER with the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE which was Washington DC, it remains a divide and rule strategy. It does not matter if anybody tells you it is a divide and rule strategy, or not, because the strategy is given away by the EVENTS. One might chest-thump around about how powerful ones "fwiends" are, but there will always be a PRICE TAG. See Ukraine today, the "past FAVORITE." There is always a price tag. Often the excuses for meddling mirror each other, from "we must help the poor peopke" to "but, but, it was voluntary". Regardless of any apologetics it remains DIVIDE AND RULE.
    2
  236. Yes, "repent" and use the own means to alleviate some of the long-term effects of Japanese pre-WW2 imperialism, by funding schools, infrastructure benefiting these Asia-Pacific region it contributed to destroying (1895 to 1945), and other means to aid these regions to rise in economic ways.
    2
  237. A little bit of reality, rather than cherry-picked and skewed history 😮 PART I "During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), (§§§footnote) the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed." SOURCE: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive US strategist in these think tanks lay out the scheme of what was going to be the new post-war reality, as a "Grand Area" as an almost exclusive "back yard", and under their "natural rights" for the USA to control. Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The more industrial countries were to be guided as "great workshops". Those who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (would now be working under US supervision/finance). More, undeveloped regions were to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial centers, as a memo put it. They were to be "exploited" for the reconstruction of Europe (The references are to South America and Africa, but the points are general.) To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this." Note, all words in quotes were actual words used IN THIS OFFICIAL US DOCUMENT, and the thesis and its quoted sources can all be downloaded for free, from the www, and using these key words provided for your search engine. --------------------------------- After around 1940, ... (quote) "Alvin Hansen envisioned a joint Soviet-American domination of Europe that anticipated Henry Kissinger’s subsequent “Partnership of Strength.” Hansen observed in 1945, at the outset of his study of America’s Role in the World Economy, that the great new postwar fact would be “the rise of Russia on the one side of the globe and the economic and military power of the United States on the other. A happy geographical accident (§§§footnote) – two great powers occupying vast continents and controlling vast resources in areas that are noncompetitive – this fact must be set down as a dominating and directing force in the future course of history. We are confronted here with a completely new constellation of forces. *Within this framework the role of France, Germany and ENGLAND of necessity must be something very different from that set by the European patterns of past generations..." "During the war its diplomats had come to recognize that given America’s economic supremacy, a more open international economy would not impair the U.S. economy, but would link the economic activity of other non-Communist countries into a satellite relationship with the United States. It was unlikely that in the foreseeable future foreign countries dependent for their reconstruction on the inflow of U.S. resources could interfere in U.S. domestic policies. On the other hand the reverse, an extension of U.S. influence over other countries, was visibly possible. Thus, whereas America had boycotted the League of Nations after the First World War as a threat to its domestic sovereignty, it no longer feared multilateralism. Quite visibly, the more open and interlinked the postwar international economy became, the greater would be the force of U.S. diplomacy throughout the world." From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.", Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
    2
  238. PART II "What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116) "By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117) "Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003) In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers. ----------------------------------- "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise." [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] §§§footnote If you wish to know more about exactly how the British Empire was "being dismantled,"....respond...
    2
  239.  @KevinPhelann-gc1tu  No, I prefer to explain how divide-and-rule works from a circle a friends and equals. Cheers.
    2
  240. Lies, hypocrisy, and misinformation are cornerstones of all concerted divide and rule strategies...
    2
  241.  @garyddlewis3067  Russia was encroached upon by NATO expansion after the 1990s. In 1941 Japan wanted to use Western imperialism's defeat in Europe, the mimitary weakness of the clobbered France, GB and the Netherlands in Europe, to expand into the Pacific. These are two fundamentaly different geopolitical setups. That changes nothing about the OP, which is still about a strategy of power known as "goading." Have you even bothered reading the McCollum Memorandum? It's online, you don't even have to leave the house....
    2
  242. The people who criticize "book burning" usually have no problem with censorship, cancel culture, banning different standpoints, etc.
    2
  243. French and German economies are tanking, heading for a likely recession. Who wouda guessed that cutting yourself off from reliable and affordable sources of energy, could backfire and hit the own people straight in the face... 😮
    2
  244.  @vgstb  He is looking into a mirror and speaking. 🙂 According to Gary, the mirror does not reflect well. According to Gary, the mirror is "unwell". According to Gary, "Gary" is perfect.
    2
  245.  @garyddlewis3067  My favorite gish galloper, trying to instigate dissent with a technique known as "allegation without evidence". Nice. Try.
    2
  246. Israel "very successfully" used million dollar defense missiles, to take down 20,000 dollar drones... That, in itself, is a strategy in itself.
    2
  247.  @BrennanYoung  In strategy, only a twofold superiority in quality, can overcome a fourfold superiority in numbers (or something to that effect, since I forgot the exact proportion). But you'll get the idea. The collective West is no longer "twofold superior" in technology.
    2
  248. Like indigenous peoples every where, the few who are left have become assimilated, overpowered, and integrated.
    2
  249.  @monumentaltravel3745  Cool language 🤣 I hope you don't assume our own leaders "playing Rome" are little angels.
    2
  250.  @user-bm6jn9ls4n  That's the old excuse: in reality it is always the own arrogance of power leading to the imperialist painting himself into a corner, and the minute the own "might" fails, the "right" will be determined by another imperialist.
    2
  251. Von der Lying = pawn for the American Century (Young Global "Leader"). Young Global Leaders = Trojan Horse. The enter the walls of unity, then destroy it from the inside.
    2
  252.  @jason8434  Very interesting comment. Remember that throughout history, "wars/crises" have always been one of the biggest influencers in human bahaviour, and therefore a perfect "divider": War creates long-term effects, in the minds of a majority of human beings. For the ruling classes, in the sinecure comfort behind their high walls, there is often no incentive to stop cirises and wars, apart from the "good souls" in every system (incl governments), who often cannot stop the bad people in their own systems. "The Force" to influence billions of minds is strategy. The most effective of these is the divide and rule/conquer technique. It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: WRONG. It is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling". Every system which does not specifically forbid the divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it. No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy". One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is. Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use the technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Like the Nazis, all power players regardless of the "system of gain" in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves... Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank. The favorite = the proxy. Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish. All that is needed is a position of superior power. The Big Lie is the power of the divide and rule/conquer technique, and even the Nazis hid their "Big Lie"-conspiracy theory, behind an even bigger lie: how they intended to play this game until they got into power after their failed coup d'etat. The "Big Lie" is not a myth but a misrepresentation of the truth. It is the power of "divide and rule/conquer" which lurks behind every strategy they follow, in order to gain. No human being has ever come up with a means to overcome this age-old technique of ruling over billions of people, because it is predicated on human nature itself, which is enduring. No power player wants to become associated with authoritarian, or "colonial" tactics and strategies, or Nazis, so they cannot use it as a political means to attack rivals: it will immediately result in blowback. The "Big Lie" conspiracy masked the divide and rule technique. No power player can ever accuse any other power player of using it, since it will immediately backfire: the accusation of using the technique themselves, which in most cases of intent of gain will even apply***. The disguise usually comes in the form of scapegoating or another form of appeal to the emotion of listeners, or addressing and fortifying their already existing biases. "Scapegoating" = an appeal to lower emotions of potential supporters. In our divided societies, appealing to these biases might always be that tiny little "weight" that tilts the scale in very tightly run political elections. Most power players read books on strategy, with the intention of using these strategies for personal gain, not because they wish to benefit you (the individual). There is always the urge to defend own favored systems, when one reads perceived "attacks" on these favored systems or own heroes, and the beloved own "-isms", which also reveal standard procedures, meaning the "attacker" soon falls into predetermined pathways to deflect and obfuscate from the core theory... Great Britain did not "win" from the "divide and rule/conquer" system they had set up in Europe, which was a matter of long-term standing policy (historical analysis based on the observation of events), which resulted in London making the strongest continental power their "default rival/enemy" system. Britons (average citizens) lost BIG TIME. If you wish to truly understand the "how" and "why", then go to the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under this video. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired. No, these essays are not a "conspiracy theory." Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory. Most of what we are fed by our systems, as "rote leaning" details, are "99% ancillary details": not saying these are untrue or wrong, but simply that they are not as important on the ranking or "tiers" of events as geopolitics and grand strategy. For these geostrategists, divide and rule/conquer is their main strategy, regardless of what you as an individual believe. Footnotes: ***the strategy of "divide and rule/conquer" only applies in competitive "intent of gain" systems, not benevolent forms of reciprocal human interaction which are 100% fair...
    2
  253. Yes, 100% on track. It is also intended for "future Asia." Historically in East Asia, India and China were the biggest losers as outsiders came with the divide-and-rule technique of power (Era of Western Imperialism). If one understands what happened to China during their "Century of Humiliation," means that one then already has the template to understand what is happening today. One can use the historical "template" and apply it in the same manner. What happened to China during that era, is how "divide and rule" worked in the past, and still works today. Create or deepen a political problem, and then wait for the little minions benefiting from the outside POWER of imperialism to come asking for "help." Use their "plight" (artificially enhanced) to meddle, or "leverage" (power dynamics) crises into "eternal problems," sit by and do nothing as problems foment into violence, revolutions, and wars, or carry out other forms of privatized interference (corporatism) under government protection, or without. Whatever works, details really REALLY DON'T MATTER. Once "fomented troubles" rise out of hand, claim to "just want peace." Then use the little minions as favourites (favouritism = a technique within the "divide and rule" strategy of power) to destabilize an entire region, steer them against other weaker entities, and/or employ them as instruments of power (the "tools" of power dynamics), or create overseas regions as a staging area far from the home base (the "unsinkable aircraft carriers"/like colonial-era Hong Kong), etc. Whatever works for the desired region to be divided/conquered or where CONTROL and domination is required for the economic systems of gain. There is no way that current day Chinese leaders will not have learnt their very own historical lesson, and allow their very own history to repeat/rhyme, and allow such outside meddling in the own systems to gain traction, AGAIN for a second time. Every nation or state has its own "Never again!" European citizens today are still suffering from the hegemonial ambitions of some of their leaders, teaming up with Washington DC/the Pentagon. These citizens, usually around 50% of entire populations, suffer directly ("heating or eating"), or indirectly (soaring inflation), these are all "effects," not to be confused with "causes" (see concept of retro causality, one of the most easily misused ways to skew a timeline of events). Some eventually even end up in the muddy trenches. Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or Mackinder before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their (temporary) GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER. With re. to how tools are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..." Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves. Note also, that a "plan" and the strategy to effect the plan, are two different things. Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as the USA implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combatted by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today, and there is MORE than sufficient evidence for this. Outsiders intent on playing the game, use the revolutionary spirit, in order to hop onto useful dissent, strengthen it, and insert levers which they can pry open to gain own advantages. Beijing is certainly 100% aware of this, so everything you are witnessing today is a political EFFECT, not a political "cause" as some leaders wish to mislead us towards. Everything you are being told about Berlin, in stages after 1894, 1904, 1907, and 1912, with gathering momentum, were EFFECTS, not CAUSES. That was, based on observation, outside powers with the intention to "divide and rule" Europe, by encroaching/encircling the major continental power, which has never changed throughout recent modern history. The ONLY factor which changed over the last few centuries, was the "major continental power" which had to be CONTROLLED by the outside power who wanted a competitive advantage. The historical parallel, is the "Chinese Century of Shame"-historicity, and is well-known at least to the 1.4 billion inhabitants of China today. Certainly, they also do not wish to become "carved up" and ruled over by outsiders again, for a second time. The template therefore predicts a similar outcome, that of the more encroachment/encirclement, the more likeliness of the "breakout attempt" in some possible future. Obvious solution for a more stable world, stop the encroachment/encirclement. Both historically (post-1900) as well as our recent history (post-2000) there seems little incentive for those with the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to do so, but rather the repeated attempts to search for tools to do such encroachment/encirclement FOR the outside power/s intent on gain. Empires do not become dominant because they hand out candy and bouquets of flowers, as most realists are fully aware of, therefore the wise advice to always keep a just/wise "balance of powers. If not, fail. Power flows to where the attention goes first, in geopolitics, in the form of political policies. These can be studied by looking at the events themselves, not what another human being tells you (incl. this essay, which doesn't tell you anything, but implores you to start focusing on the well-known events themselves, from which one can then infer the underlying hidden policies, strategies, or objectives). If you live in East Asia, beware of the "dividers". The hawks will come looking for "buck catchers" and the doves will disguise it as the "helping friends"-narrative = i.e. the template of modern western imperialism. Hawks and doves working in close unison, although stated as being opposite poles. They WILL come to you, same way as they came to the Ukraine, following the 1990s. China has "understood". India thinks it can "play the game" like France once did in Europe (becoming a "buck catcher" for the British Empire and USA), post-1900.
    2
  254. "Furthermore, British officials worked to emphasise the differences in the Indian army, in an attempt to prevent a unification of Indians against British rule along the lines of race, nationality, religion, or caste (p49)...British officials introduced laws over the following years to keep the army divided along caste and religious lines...Firstly, they increased the number of European troops that made up the army, which decreased the level of Indian unity found in the older Indian army (p50) ... As Lord Ellenborough, a British politician who served as Governor-General of British India from 1842-1844 stated: 'The fewer elements of combination there are in the native army the better, and therefore the more nationalities and castes and religions, the more secure we shall be.'(p 53) ... As another British official, Lord Elphinstone, wrote: 'Divide et Impera was the old Roman motto, and it should be ours'(p 54)." Stewart, N. (1951). Divide and Rule: British Policy in Indian History. Science & Society, 15(1), (pp.49-57) "In their reorganization of the army after the rebellion had been suppressed, British officials implemented the tactic of divide and rule in an attempt to prevent any future mutinies" Morrock, R. (1973). Heritage of Strife: The Effects of Colonialist "Divide and Rule" Strategy upon the Colonized Peoples. Science & Society, 37(2), (pp.129-151)
    2
  255. The long shaddow of Western Imperialism, returns. The "empires" strike again. All of this was kickstarted with Western Imperialism, in 1904/05. The people of Morocco (at the time, 1905) were carved up as a "divide and conquer"-technique and have since 1911 grown up under completely different empires, with different education, loyalties, leaderships, and hegemons. One cannot "reverse" such a history, by ignoring the fact that the people today are not the same coherent mass as before 1905, when all were a part of the same kingdom. Today, it is "divide and rule" yet again, as the USA, dragging along its junior partner Israel, are trying to set up Morocco against Algeria, as "buck catcher" to destabilize the entire MENA region. Algeria is pro-China. Pure coincidence, I'm sure 😮 Morocco, which received the "gift" of territory, per "ruling", is pro-USA. Its fabulously corrupted rich king, a parallel of the obscenely wealthy Arab sheiks of the post-1960s, also "favorites" of the American Century, and equally, also tools in a "divide and rule"-setup of the MENA region...
    2
  256. Yes, that is correct. In power dynamics, the tail does not "wag the dog,* and it is in fact deeply "antisemitic" in the truest sense of the word (bigotry) to imply that it is the tiny little power (Israel) which controls the bigger power: it appeals to all kinds of stereotypes about the "typical jew," and it is false. Prejuduce, bigotry, and stereotypical worldviews make it easy to hide the hegemony's strategy. In power dynamics, it is the "dogs" which "wag the tail," and Israel is a tool of Washington DC's hegemonial ambitions in the ME, which uses Israel as an extension of its own POWER.
    2
  257. Those who have power constantly preach the "rules based society", but the rules they preach, are nothing like the "rules" they themselves follow as guidelines... They themselves follow "rules" like the "48 Rules of Power/Robert Greene", which are not meant to overcome the divide and rule setup of any society, even democracies, but to make use of the divisions between systems, amplify these divisions if useful, or gloss over such divisions if beneficial for the own gain, in order to win personally or for the own favored system. For those who follow such "rules", hypocrisy or lies are not an "oversight", or "a mistake", or "accidental", but a strategy of power (see footnote). Hypocrites draw other hypocrites into their own circles of power: by being openly hypocritical, a hypocrite exposes himself/herself, and can therefore be approached by systems of gain. This is greatly aided by media, or the internet, incl. "free speech", since hypocrisy and lying is a "protected right". Creating entire entities of professional hypocrites and professional spinners, framers, and liars thereby establishing a hierarchy of hypocrites/deceivers, especially prevallent in systems of power and gain, like politics (incl., but not limited to "liberal democracies"), and all forms of structures with an intent of gain motivation (incl., but not limited to capitalist gain models). All of these attract a potential "<20% psychos" which are proven to exist in the top echelons of power in all "intent of gain systems". Such systems also attract natural bullies, as per observable reality. Hypocrites, narcissistic behaviour, bullying, and Machiavellianism might cause unease in the overwhelming number of good people in every society, but these good people are usually not the ones "gatekeeping" (also a bully tactic) the most influencial political/corporate job openings, which are not voted for by the populations of "Western-style"-democracies, or in corporations which then proceed to buy their own favorable laws (lobbying, influence) and buy corruptable politicians in the "legalized bribes"-systems they had previously lobbied for... Being openly hypocritical and deceptive is a "rule" considered a virtue, in some circles of power. Calling these people out in an effort of shaming is pointless, since they have no shame. Footnotes/key words for further research: * 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths * Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy * The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
    2
  258. Interesting allegation. Who is paying you?
    2
  259. As bad as the Japanese occupation was, it was not Japan which caused most of the suffering in Korea, but western Imperialism. This western imperialism, was the "big picture" reality, which gave rise to everything which followed in its wake. Korea was first "signed away" by western powers against the backdrop of the own colonial ambitions for Asia, just before the Russo-Japanese War of 1904. The Korean appeal to these western hegemons by declaring the own neutrality, and wishing to remain outside of these colonial wars, was first acknowledged by these western powers, but when Japan ignored this neutrality and used Korea as staging area to attack Russia, these same western nations who saw an advantage in opposing Russian expansion (mainly GB and the USA) did nothing to uphold Korean neutrality and the subsequent step by step Japanese subjection. Note that while a European country's "neutrality" was "worth escalating a continental European war into a world war for" a few years later (Belgium, 1914), Korea in 1904 was not... The final episode of this Era of Imperialism for Korea came with WW2. Korea was simply divided up in two parts, by the "winners" of this war, under the auspices of "wanting the best for the people", but without simply asking the people or their representatives what they wanted for themselves. An entirely random border was taken, and yet another nation in the world split into two parts, as "loot" of the winning systems. Wiki: "The division of Korea began with the defeat of Japan in World War II. During the war, the Allied leaders considered the question of Korea's future after Japan's surrender in the war. The leaders reached an understanding that Korea would be liberated from Japan but would be placed under an international trusteeship until the Koreans would be deemed ready for self-rule.[1] In the last days of the war, the U.S. proposed dividing the Korean peninsula into two occupation zones (a U.S. and Soviet one) with the 38th parallel as the dividing line. The Soviets accepted their proposal and agreed to divide Korea.[2]" For the west, the new "South Korea" was simply a new jumping off point in order to safeguard their previous "loot" (colonial concessions/spheres of influence in Asia), or as staging areas for further potentially possible conquests in Asia, and to stand against the Soviet occupation of N. China (Manchuria). The divide and rule/conquer strategy which effected Korea for the last 150 years, is an insidious tool of domination, control, and rule (direct or indirect). It hides itself behind a plethora of "kind words" but it reveals itself when studying the actions, and actually looking at a map, and what was happening elsewhere, both in regional proximity, as well as thousands of miles away in the capital cities of the world hegemons. "Divide and rule, weaken and conquer, love and enslave, these are three tenets of politics" ― Bangambiki Habyarimana These "friends" came from outside, and "loved" and "enslaved" people all over the globe and set local groups up against each other, using a variety of means: favoratism, money, their own emotions (often the effects of the own histories)... South Koreans might consider themselves lucky today, and blessed with "economic well-being" and "good friends" from the Collective West, but this current "luck" is again only an effect of its current geographical location on the map. South Korea is again simply useful in standing up to a (now united/strong) China, same as Japan was useful during the Cold War (contain communism in Asia). Any temporary "friends" will be immediately dropped by the western hegemons the moment the big picture reality is no longer the case. Sadly, a chosen own neutrality means nothing in the realist world, for as Prof. John Mearsheimer stated: the self-preservation instincts of the global hegemons comes first, and "little South Korea" is in a fracture zone between the tectonic plates created by empires. In this reality, local Asian people are being set up anew, to surround the western hegemons' new rival, which is China. Japan, South Korea, the Philippenes, etc. on the Pacific side, and others on the Asian side (India, talks of "independent Tibet", Thailand elections being meddled in by the NED, etc.) in a grand encirclement strategy as history repeats...
    2
  260. "They" are the dividers. The initial and oldest enemy of all of mankind. The natural urge of most humans is to unite, create prosperous commons. These snakes do the opposite: they divide people.
    2
  261. What is the duty of most the western press? It is to create narratives. The future of (quote) "evil Russia". Upon zooming out, divide and rule always unfolds the same way. And always functions the same way: set people up against each other, or use existing divisions by amplifying these, a chief means being favoratism of certain key strategically located regions (in Europe for example, in the past it was France and Great Britain). When things invariably go wrong, blame the people so "divided" by own premeditated policies, or the leaders of these people. Whether the desired regions are democracies or autocracies does not even matter: if democracies, just blame the people, and if autocracies blame the leaderships. Or both, also doesn't really matter either. Accuracy is not important, and the overlapping multi-layered divide and rule systems in each seperate system will take care of everything as eternal struggle for "the truth" is fought out in books, documentaries, debates, journals, political events, usually accompanied by incredible amounts of carefully and meticulously researched data. What is revealed by careful undistorted observation though, is the direction the expansion takes place (see below comment about creating future "staging areas") and a few core methods. "In May 2022, US journalist Casey Michel called for the "decolonization" of Russia. In his view, the dissolution of the former Soviet Union should be continued, to end the rule of Moscow over the republics of Russia.[28] Weeks later the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe held an event discussing "the need to 'decolonize' Russia" because of "Russia's barbaric war on Ukraine", as they put it, calling for a conversation about Russia's "interior empire" and noting "Moscow's dominion over many indigenous non-Russian nations".[Wiki] Or search for "Prep aring for the Dis.solution of the Rus.sian Fede ration" on You Tube Go back to how the USA "dissoluted" Native American tribal lands in the past... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars ...then simply scale this development up, and one can see "Russia" in its potential desired future for the strategists in the Western world. Advance on step at a time. One staging area to the next (see below essay). Russia tomorrow. The techniques are the same. All that is needed is a few local "new nations/states" (ex-Russian Federation) to do the heavy lifting, to encroach on and encircle the next in line, which is the real goal: China.
    2
  262. Quick to judge? What does your Bible say?
    2
  263. The problem you are calling out kickstarted with Western Imperialism, in 1904/05. The people of Morocco (at the time, 1905) were carved up as a "divide and conquer"-technique and have since 1911 grown up under completely different empires, with different education, loyalties, leaderships, and hegemons. You are trying to "reverse" history, by ignoring the fact that the people today are not the same coherent mass as before 1905, when all were a part of the same kingdom.
    2
  264. When empires decline, times become dangerous for the common people....
    2
  265. Keeping Germany as "down" as possible, and keeping Russia as "out" of any comprehensive European solution as possible, for mutually agreed upon comprehensive security agreements is a recurring issue in European systems interacting. It mainly turned out as very beneficial for outside powers, especially the USA. Not only logically, but also statistically, should Western continental Europe and Eastern continental Europe ever unite, with shared good relations to China, it would overpower the USA as world hegemon. Basically, keeping Central European "brains" (innovation and technology) and Russian "muscle" (manpower, strategic location, plus raw materials) apart, has a long history which spanned two empires. The British Empire before World War 2, as stated in Mackinder's Pivot of History (1904) and the new American Century after 1945. It started a long time ago, with the British Empire setting out to avoid more unity, and breaking up the Three Kaiser League as a stated goal. "Disraeli also achieved a hidden objective. Beaconsfield revealed to Henry Drummond Wolff that the British mission to the Congress of Berlin had two major objectives. Next to making a tolerable settlement for the Porte, our great object was to break up, and permanently prevent, the alliance of the three Empires, and I maintain there never was a general diplomatic result more completely effected. Of course, it does not appear on the protocols; it was realised by personal influence alone, both on Andrassy [the Austrian representative] and Bismarck. The members of the Three Emperors' League were Austria, Germany, and Russia. The Congress of Berlin drove a wedge between Russia and the other two members. Germany formed the Dual Alliance with Austria in 1879 to protect one another from possible Russian aggression. The treaty remained in effect even after Russia requested a renewal of the Three Emperors' League in 1881. The Dreikaiserbund [Three Emperors' League] never did recover from the Eastern crisis while Disraeli was in office, and its later revival after Gladstone put 'Beaconsfieldism' into reverse took a different and less stable form." from THE FOURTH PARTY AND CONSERVATIVE EVOLUTION, 1880-1885 by KEITH RICHMON OWEN, B.A., M.A. A DISSERTATION IN HISTORY Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in August, 2000 (p.25) Therefore, speaking about the post-2000 attempt of keeping Russia "out" of Europe, by encroaching on it with NATO expansion might well not be a "mistake" as stated by David T. Pyne (historian), but a geopolitical strategy, and it has a long history. If it were a mere "mistake", it would be amazingly recurring: - attempts to break up the Three Kaiser League (by London) - attempts to break up Treaty of Bjorko (by London) - Versailles (Limitrophe States as a barrier in Eurasia, by London in conjunction with Washington DC) - The quasi "declaration" of the Cold War (Churchill/"Iron Curtain" speech) - Truman Doctrine (by Washington DC) 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." [editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things] From wiki: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the (Washington DC) administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[20]" Or as the old insider joke went: NATO's function was "to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out." (Lord Ismay) Whether these are real "mistakes" (sic.) or a concerted strategy lurks behind as ulterior motive, remains hidden.
    2
  266. Keep a lookout for the ingroup jargon. In case you don't know what that means, it is highly likely you are already in an ingroup, but not aware of it. The next level to the ingroup, is "the cult." When one cannot recognize the typical cult behaviour of devout compliance to an ideology, one is already firmly embedded in "the cult" of a belief system. Telling someone who is in a cult, or a belief system, that they are indoctrinated, is usually a waste of time. Ideologically indoctrinated politicians and power players who lie, and the warriors they incite to fight to spread their ideologies are the root cause of all evil in the world. One doesn't even have to infer much, since they will tell you straight in your face, because they are so rich, proud, hectoring, and squibbing that they are blind as to what they are a part of. So far, so good. Most people will happily agree to the above, since their "finger" is already "pointing" elsewhere. Blissfully unaware, that... According to the dictionary, an ideology is an organized set of political or economic ideas... for example, "democracy" and "capitalism," both of which are ideologies. If one tries to list all the ideologically inspired lies and deceptions by politicians who have started/bandwagoned wars to (quote) "make the world safe for democracy" the list will be long and the victims uncountable, because the ideologues don't even bother to count them. Except of course when it's "the other side". Then they list them exactly, and continuously create Hollywood movies and TV documentaries about the "other sides". In these (his)stories, "we" (ingroup) are always the good guys. Anything else will not "sell" well. Millions of deaths and total ruin emanating from London and Washington DC to spread their ideologies and empires, and that's just the wars since 1945. Not even to mention the death and destruction of events before that. It is futile to educate the masses who are going into the trenches about the harmful effects of war. People already know it, but they are powerless against the forces that are leading entire regions into war. These top politicians, who sit in sinecure comfort in peacetime and have bunkers in wartime, have no intention of bearing the consequences of their decisions. Carl Jung on psychoanalytic dicta: "If you cannot understand why someone did something, look at the consequences and infer the motivation," and similarly, Jordan Peterson: "If you can't understand why someone is doing something, look at the consequences of their actions, whatever they might be, and then infer the motivations from their consequences." The so-called "collective West" is inundated with ideologues.
    2
  267. ​ @janetbaker1945  Nothing. The doc was posted an hour ago and is an hour long. The OP posted his comment an hour ago. Meaning...he didn't even watch it.
    2
  268.  @tommackling  Thank you. Excellent analysis of the micro- and macro levels of society. Agreed 100%: the entities ypu called camps are well-studied as ingroup/outgroup dynamics. In very competitive systems, the ingroups wish to create images of what outgroups are like, and the ingroups tend to wish unity for themselves (all tiers) while they drive to achieve division in the outgroups: that is the basis of divide and rule, a strategy of power. Unity for me (ingroup), but division for thee (outgroup). rgds
    2
  269. The biggest danger to the world are ideoligically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world. Search the term ideology in a dictionary. It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER. It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues. These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago. Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy. One of these axioms, must be wrong.
    2
  270.  @woke2woke153  I know the "story." It is the appeal to emotion. It was already countered by Ben Gurion in the 1930s when he asked "how is what happened to us, their problem?" and "we stole their land/country." (paraphrased) Reality at time? The people of the Levant/Palestine were not responsible for the suffering of Jews in Eastern Europe. European leaders took the easy way out, and unloaded the burden of their historical guilt, onto others who were not consulted. It is a very easy biblical logic, and moral question already pointed out as "put yourself in their shoes." Or, with re. to Europeans, that of NIMBY: not caring what happened far away, when Europeans litarally shipped their "problem" abroad, to the powerless peoples of the Levant. Was resulted out of that was resistence to imperialism, with a clear causal chain of effects. Today there is always the tendency to skip the history which isn't convenient, and "start" the timeline somewhere in the middle of the entire story, so it sounds better.
    2
  271.  @VonKirda  These are tools of empires. Tools in a strategy of "divide and rule". Tools too pre-occupied on their own thoughts to realize how they are being "employed" by outside powers who wish to gain at the expense of such tools.
    2
  272. Online Disinhibition Effect taken its toll again...
    2
  273.  @neovxr  Thank you. An interesting biography. There will always be those who do more for freedom and liberty than others, and rise against oppression.
    2
  274.  @ERH-ph5gb  I made the same statement about the aristocracy/nobility recently in a warning to Greenlanders when the "hedge fund babies" come to their shore to graze everything off. These outsiders are not connected to the land and have little moral grounds to care much about anything but short-term profit. I wrote: "Machiavelli: "And it is seen by experience that only princes and armed republics make very great progress, whereas mercenary forces do nothing but harm …" Read the books on strategy and the allegories about power, and read them as INTENDED, not as somebody interprets them FOR you... Machiavelli stated that it is the "princes" (connected to the lands, often hereditary gatekeepers) who actually cared about a region, because these regions were the centers of their own "insider" wealth/power. But when the "mercenaries" (foreigners, vested interests) arrive, as foreigners who are in it only for the profit/gain, that is when entire regions are dragged down in circles of international corruption. When the "mercenaries" of international hedge funds, mining companies, foreign armies, foreign-approved politicians, and other examples of ivory towers ("revolving doors" models of power) step in and build up, you will not rid yourself of these (mostly) outsiders easily again." (end of) Once these locusts swarm in, they will graze off the wealth of entire regions.
    2
  275. @salicaguillotines  Yes, it's "cultural-/economic-/political capture". The Roman Empire already did it 2,000 years ago. To morph the locals in the periphery of their empire to "do like the Romans do." Then use these as proxies for the "next step" a generation or so later. You can project the strategy on Eurasia.
    2
  276.  @nataliap.7519  Thank you for the kind words. The book has been on my "bucket list" for a while and I hope to get around to reading it soon. Cheers.
    2
  277. Most of the founding fathers of the USA were born in the British Empire. They, heading a population which was against foreign rule, decided they wanted an own country. What is your point?
    2
  278. The entire "repeat the mistake of 1938"-line of argumentation is known to realists as the "false premise". It was never about "making a mistake". The reality is that it was a "Balance of Power"-issue. In 1938, there would never have been a preventive war, declared by GB, because a rising (in power) Germany, first taking over Austria, then allying with Italy to form the Axis, simply neatly balanced "rising SU" (starting with the 5 Year Plans of 1928). As the SU began rising in power thoughout the 1930s, something on the continent was needed to form an "opposing power", in the "balance of power"-logic of London lords. Any talk of "we shoulda done"-logic is totally beside the point.
    2
  279. Globalism wants your plot.😮 Yes, these globslists are Western-based corporations and their affiliates.
    2
  280.  @jamesmoriarty3593  Correct. And the fact that 2,000 years later, Europe was already divided more than sufficiently, also greatly aided the rise of the American Century. Only the scale of events were different (and the technologies involved of course, on the timeline of development). The strategies were the same, which is why "history rhymed."
    2
  281.  @Stacie45  Excellent way to counter the censorship. Are your comments getting deleted too?
    2
  282. Why don't you go home then !!! 🤣😄👋
    2
  283. What most MSM and established historians seem to forget, whilst proudly advocating the "fighting for democracy" virtue signalling, is that it had been the democratic "liberal empires" (USA/GB) which had lain the foundation of Europe`s demise around the year 1900. From the position of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE which afforded the slight edge in power, which was then exploited by seeing to it that others where kept "down" and "out" of the reach of resources which were needed to succeed. These resources were controlled via that slight edge which geography afforded, at that was true at ALL times. It is a systemic conclusion, which unlike all other theories out there, is true at ALL times, never mind how far one goes back into the past. Those who carry out such "rule," are not going to tell us how they rule by division on ALL tiers, and how they have ruled by division on all tiers for thousands of years. It is about the oldest trick in the book, to rule by division from a position of POWER. They will tell us, their "good fools," that it is all about the good vs. the bad but guess what they are NOT telling us? They never state HOW they manage it. The top tiers divide and rule, and this functions in one direction only: down, to the base, which is "we the people." They divide us, but we have no way or means to divide them, the top tiers, in return. The disinformation playbook of the empire will strike back when the empire feels threatened, and their MO will be predictable: The Fake: Conduct counterfeit narrative and try to pass it off as legitimate research. The Blitz: Harass those who speak out against the empire and its friends. The Diversion: Manufacture uncertainty where little or none exists. The Screen: Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies. The Fix: Manipulate government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policy. This closely mirrors the empire's habit of using human beings as tools, as "barriers", "vassals", as "taxpayers" or other forms of voluntary/involuntary support. The empire has ways to employ human beings in direct or indirect manners, including secondary and tertiary functions of support. These are all typical divide and rule strategies, which are employed on all tiers of systems intent on aggressive gain, and which are therefore typical of all systems of gain, including capitalist and democratic systems. The technique is common in the systems of "capitalism/corporatism" and "democracy/globalism" and can be examined in meta studies. It's almost guaranteed that as soon as one reaches the "sensitive zones" of the empire, the MSM flak will get real thick... These systems are systemically infested by sociopaths and psychopaths of all kinds, who put interests and profit first, above all else. Key words for further research: 1) 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths 2) Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy 3) The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism 4) Dr Namie's research revealing the "Four Bully Types" "As long as people believe in absurdities, people will commit atrocities." - Voltaire "All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed, they must rely exclusively on force." "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell, 1984
    2
  284. Washington DC/the Pentagon will be happy to have a new "buck catcher" Finland, and who they can pin a big red bulls-eye on the back, and whose wealth they can extract with billion dollar "defense contracts"... Like a giant vacuum cleaner the US Military Industrial Complex will suck off the wealth off the taxpayers of Finland, and transfer it to the US elites.
    2
  285. Skewing the timeline of events is one of the classical propaganda means which is proven to work on most people. Most people do not care about "little events", so they usually do not bother. Then when the propagandized BIG EVENT is ballooned out of proportion, then everybody suddenly wakes up out of their slumber and starts pointing the finger...exactly where the propagandist directs them.
    2
  286. These are the same censorship fans who will inform you that the Nazi "burning books"-ritual was a bad thing... Wellcome to the new ritual.
    2
  287. Fiat currency is "faith backed". As long as there is global "trust/belief" in the dollar, everything's hunkydory... Should that faith/trust/belief get trashed, then bye bye American Century ...
    2
  288. MIC plus AC (academic complex) = MIMAC It goes beyond "MIC". They buy everything, and provide personal gain if you cooperate and write what they like the sound of...
    2
  289.  @the_famous_reply_guy  Thank you. As I stated in the other thread, I focus on the "systems"strategies"-tier of events, meaning that it becomes clear how easy it is for imperialism to "employ" distracted minds into actually "cheering for" imperialism, whilsts being completely unaware that they are supporting imperialist expansion. In case you wish to see another example of such "narratives" being able to mislead people, I'll post another comment below. When you are around halfway in, ask yourself the question "what is the essay about?" Most people immediately assume it about Israel/Palestine.
    2
  290. That's favoratism. Favoratism is divide-and-rule. The "favored" are drawn into the own "camp" then set up against neighbors who were given a pariah status.
    2
  291. The sunk cost fallacy moment is nearing fast. It's "1916" on the timeline for Europe/Eurasia...AGAIN. The collective hive mind in the capital cities in the USA/collective West (Allies 1916 = NATO post-1990) must decide soon whether to "write the Ukraine off" or "invest more". Do not expect a wise answer from those who do not intend to suffer from any effects their own decisions will result in. According to the strategies of the wise, it states "if all else fails, retreat" (see the 36 stratagems of power). They want their "Versailles moment" as "victory"...AGAIN. The framers/manipulators in power have already "tried everything else" and failed, but do not expect them to "retreat" and lose their "investments." They will "Pivot to Asia" (Iran, South China Sea, or thereabouts) and sacrifice your daughter (current debates) before they send their own sons off to the wars they have lain the foundations for. That was not different around 1900, than it was around the year 2000. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FREEDOM vs. CONSCRIPTION I just came here from a video with thousands of angry comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, Germans, Poles, etc. stating "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go", or anger at incompetent politicians. They mirror those made by thousands of comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand how power works. It does not matter what they think. It was what millions of young men already said a century ago in the leadup to their governments' declarations of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me". JOHN MEARSHEIMER THEORY/SYSTEMIC ANALYSIS There can only be a few "winners". The rest are the systemic cannon fodder for the gain of those who pass the buck. The "buck passer" is of course the weakest of all minds. Democratic systems of course offer the perfect environments for the opportune to practice eternal "passing the buck": none of these leaders ever did anything wrong (sic.), nobody ever decided anything bad (sic.), nobody ever lied, and everybody can always simply point the finger, everywhere else. The perfect systems for all kinds of cowards, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and lower-tiered finger-pointers... Here is what they did in both cases (around 1900, and again around the year 2000). Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power in times of peace, by the aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) by men who knew that neither they, nor their own offspring or friends, would ever have to face the consequences of an own unjustifiable standpoint. That means doing to another state/country/alliance what they would never consider acceptable, if done onto them: encircle them, encroach on them, restrict a fair access to the globe's resources. How do we know this is true? Because it actually happened, and can be observed. "I no longer listen to what people say, I just watch what they do. Behavior never lies." - Winston Churchill Yes, Winnie. What can be observed, and plotted on the map, is not a "lie". Humdeedum some time passes. By golly, no more personal "freedom", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the muddy trench to enforce Step 1. Guess who "wins"? The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup over the world. Those who hold the GEOGRAPHICALLY opportune advantage of the "higher ground" or the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
    2
  292. How much are you being paid? 😂🤣 👋✌️
    2
  293. Spot the imperialist, under the influence of globalists leaders....
    2
  294. Excellent observation. Actual universal principles would go a long way into solving many of the world's problems. But ever since "empires" became larger and more influencial, these "rulers" in positions of power, have blocked such universal principles, in favor of implementing "rulings" (top down) during which they could cherry pick the criteria for own gain. That then lay the foundation for countless crises and wars, which were needless.
    2
  295. The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a "bark" by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War). Moscow was tacidly nodding off the observed reality, without too much interverence at this point in time, since gaining full spectrum domination in Eastern Europe was more important at the time. Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, they are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent. Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust... Create favorites: favoratism... Point the finger, everywhere else... Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... 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-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? §§§footnote The concept of the "straight out lie" is related to a variety of other terms within the spectrum of "political techniques," commonly defined as "strategic ambiguity;" and/or incl. such concepts as "lying by omitting," misdirection, misconstrued, spinning, framing, all either intentionally, or sometimes unintentionally.
    2
  296. ​ @jullietmburu9672  The "-ism" was the tool of the empires GB and France.
    2
  297. Yes, the system works thus: the multiple hurdle/multiple cutoff technique aims to "employ" multiple tiers of gatekeepers to keep good people out of the structures of "empire".
    2
  298. PART 2 Regarding "the bully", and human nature, there is a direct connection between how individuals and states act and react: obviously, since states are made up of individuals with an intent of gain motive. One can therefore draw comparissons between the micro level of individuals or small scale systems (society and companies), and the macro level of corporations, big power interests, and therefore states and empires. They all act, and react in similar ways, and the connecting link is strategy. Dr. Gary Namie conducted an exhaustive series of micro level studies to conclude that there are four categories of toxic bullies in society and the workplace, based on the carefull observation and close encounters with other human beings. The four types of bullies are the Screaming Mimi, the Two-Headed Snake, the Constant Critic, and the Gatekeeper. Screaming Mimi is the fist-wielding screamer who chooses a public setting in order to vociferously point fingers in your face... Two-Headed Snake is the Jekyll and Hyde back-stabber, who steals the credit for the hard work of others. They smile and are 100% in control of body language with studied "backpats" and superficial compliments, yet behind the back spread lies, rumor, innuendo in order to damage reputations of adversaries... The Constant Critic is another one of the "finger pointing"-variety of of "friends", who's not above falsifying information, or burning documents, to pin “mistakes” on others... The Gatekeepers withhold resources others need to succeed, jealously guarding own privileges against other systems trying to make it... Our history books are full of warnings against the "screaming Mimi" variety, characterized by images of a fist-wielding screaming Hitler, yet when it comes to other bully tactics, the inhabitants of various systems of gain become remarkably acquiescent, apologetic, and complacent about observed, or unobserved actions of bullying. Bullying is of course nothing else but a strategy, and because the other three bully types are easily disguised, the overwhelming number of citizens of western style democracies go to bed each night, secure in the knowledge that they live in superior systems (democracy/capitalism). Both democracy and capitalism are designed to overpower and conquer other systems, but the means they use are more difficult to spot. Not for the first time in history, the opportunity to sign a mutually agreeable comprehensive European security agreement was bypassed, to the mutual detriment of all European systems: "President Dmitry Medvedev presented the initial proposal for a revision of the European security system during his visit to Berlin in June 2008. The proposal included the signature of a legally binding treaty (involving all states and organisations active in Europe). The Russian proposal has been subsequently repeated on many occasions, including by the Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov in his address to the UN General Assembly in September 2008 ... During World Policy Conference in Evian, France on 8 October, the Russian president explained the original idea more precisely by presenting the five principles on which the new system should be based. The key element of Medvedev’s plan remains the postulate of equal security for all, which, if implemented, would mean that no actions that might be perceived as threatening the security of others would be allowed ..." CES Commentary, Center for Eastern Studies, 16.10.2008 Empires come in 4 toxic flavors: The Screaming Mimi, the Two-Headed Snake, the Constant Critic, and the Gatekeeper. We as individuals are constantly warned about the first, but we should watch out for what we're not being told: keep a lookout for the last three. To "avoid avoiding war" by the strategy of "pushing until something snaps" is one characteristic. Bullies also manipulate millions of people, via mostly loyal squires or henchmen. Re. the question why all the observed reality is allowed to happen, is based on human nature, and the nature of our prefered systems of capitalism/democracy.
    2
  299.  @neutralitystudies  It is actually not so difficult to understand why and how events unfold. Throughout history, those powers with a geographical advantage simply had to "avoid, avoiding war", and employ a series of strategies to claim innocence. 1) drag feet/delay action 2) push, and push, until something snaps on the other side How our leaders avoid "avoiding war", and then fabricate a racket...in three easy steps. Step 1: Engineer a situation, or take on a standpoint one would never accept as "acceptable", if placed in the same situation oneself, and refuse to budge. Ignore all warnings. Step 2: Watch on as the situation deteriorates. Find a few "good fwiends", who "see things the same way", and refuse to budge. Send around a few good guys, who will try their best... Ignore all further warnings. As "crisis" turns to gloom, do as little as you can possibly get away with. Especially, don't sign anything worded in such a way that it would actually avoid war. Step 3: When the guns start firing: Here comes the most important step. Do as the Bible says (lol) and point the finger everywhere else, and wash own hands in innocence (using the easy "Pontius Pilate"-way out).
    2
  300. To address the many comments here about the ability of those under the systemic control of the USA/collective West (incl. think tanks) to ignore reality like the ongoing, obvious attempt at "ethnic cleansing VIA terror aka genocide." It's a subsection of divide-and-rule, by the CONTROLLING powers who want something: gain. Apart = separate = divide. Apartheid = divide and rule Critical question: how does a minority CONTROL a majority? How does a faraway empire, CONTROL a large group of people? Correct answer, call "them" (outgroup) a "potential tyranny" and enslave them step-by-step. Arabian Peninsula = Between the sea and the sea (Mediterranean/Indian Oceans) and should have included ALL peoples who lived here. The "barriers" were in the brain, to the detriment of all when the "dividers" came. The lines in the sands were historically drawn by "empires" to achieve gain, and are currently USED by "empires" to perpetuate gain for the own systems. Historically, who gained from DIVISION? Who would have gained from a fair UNITY on the Arabian Peninsula, when the faraway "empires" came for them after WW1? Correct answer: the people who lived there. After WW1 the British- and French empires used the divide-and-rule technique, to carve up the Arabian Penisula and subvert all the people living here. The lines were drawn to carve up the oild resources, to AVOID one power from gaining too much of the POWER which these reserves would afford them. The "divide-and-rule strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it creates ingroups of "empire fans" who gain and can become very very rich, even as millions of others suffer. Look over the horizon. Eurasia. When carrying out a geopolitical analysis, do not make the same mistakes as Africa's black tribes, and the Boers, and Native Americans, and Incas and Aztecs, and the Chinese rulers during their "Century of Humiliation", and many many more all over the world, who all failed to look past the limited horizons open to them. YOUR "horizons" are given to you by the texts in your own history books, which intend to LIMIT your horizon, not open it. Treaty of Versailles = Divide and rule of and over neighbours (Europe/Eurasia), and the misguided logic they imposed on their neighbours whom the dividers wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule (divide-and-rule onto and over the weakened local systems who "lost the war" and which they wished to create top down). After WW! European leaders who did not understand the logic of Chesterton's fence, and destroyed what they did not understand (European balance of Power, as per Concert of Europe, 1815). Who was "let in" and who was "left out" of such systemic "line drawing" agreements/accords? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Chesterton%27s_fence Zoom into the present... Abrahamic Accords = Divide and rule of and over direct neighbours (Arabian Penisula), and the misguided logic they imposed on their neighbours whom they wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule (divide-and-rule onto and over the weaker local systems). Who was "let in" and who was "left out" of such agreements/accords? The leaders of West Asia are all "divided loyalties" as long as they bow down to outside interests and value their own vested interests before the interests of the entire region (oil resources which had been turned into US/EU/Swiss assets for a few over the span of 50 years, or the "my precious borders"-mentality of ideologues, past the well-being of the majority of the own peoples). One of the biggest misconceptions of history is the ability of the ideologically/systemically indoctrinated to view themselves as unique, whereas as a general rule their own histories rhyme with other historical events, based on the systemic analysis. The will to keep the own systems APART from their neighbours (divided by ideology and rulings) always backfires, when one is no longer "King of the Mountain" (strategy of power). By the time everything implodes, the rulers/dividers are long gone, having previously brought their own wealth and families to safe havens.
    2
  301. The American Century fanboys and fangirls... (PNAC)
    2
  302. It's how divide and rule works...
    2
  303. The systemic lies are known under "Black Legend". It means writing the history of a rival in a particularly devious way to highlight all the bad, whilst downplaying the good. The technique is age-old. For the own "his/story", the technique is exactly the opposite. highlight the good, and downplay or try to bury the bad, or paint it as actions of a few "bad apples"....
    2
  304. Whatever your excuse for violence is, the occupation always came first, meaning that everything else came after that.
    2
  305.  @AeronSamuel-xg2cu  LOL, ze bible says...
    2
  306. Asking the wrong questions on a limited scope and timeline will not reveal the divide-and-rule technique. After 1945, the empire set off on the "G-G Line" from Germany to Greece, during the First Cold War after declaring yet another war which would affect the entire world ("cold" war/Truman Doctrine/declared in 1947). THE WONDERFUL 1990's, FILLED WITH PROMISE It advanced onto the "B-B Line" from the Baltics to the Black Sea (see footnote), after the "peace" was declared to the plebs after the 1990s, and a bright new future promised to all the children of history, believers in the promises made of "peace dividends for all". Fools are those who believe a leopard can change its spots. The reality is that "a leopard can't change its spots", and is the colloquial way to explain the idea that most people never change their true nature, and in the big picture/macro-level, empires will ever change their innate nature. A hegemony once "on top" will EVER step down and share "peace dividends" equally for all... The Atlanticists' mentality strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia. The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule. Systemic/ideological expansion into: - Eastern Europe. - Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route) - Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route) Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. How long do you think it will take for the empire, wriggling and writhing about ("divide-and-rule"), hopping over here and there ("pivoting") before they reach the "A-A Line"? The goals of the "dividers" who wield the power, is simply that their politics is the continuation of war by other means... ‐----------- The "B-B Line". When people start thinking in terms of dichotomies like winning/losing, left/right wing, us/them, right/wrong, unity/division, they are already all "losers." Think in terms of a desirable outcome. If not, lose. Outsiders fabricate the "crescent of crises" around your heartland. "The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015 If outsiders come from outside and start drawing lines on the map, through your homelands without asking the people who live there. Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite in order to play their own cards. They allow outsiders to play the cards FOR them. You will lose if outsiders consider you a game of cards, and draw lines right though you and your neighbors. Then they push little minions, ahead of the hegemonic power... Endless wars, constant dissent. Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS. Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down. Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Who wields the POWER? Who has had 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-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Rome. London. Washington DC. Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
    2
  307. Those who wish to drag Ireland into the so-called "International (lol) Order" (lol again) are going to use a tried and proven method to get rid of the Triple Lock, so that Ireland starts to resemble the "US model" of government, of "parties with interests" who decide on wars, invasions, and policies of oppression and the extration of resources from weaker countries. The USA needs willing "poodles" (Peter Hitchens), and are going to pay corruptable Irish leaders into becoming the advocates for said "US democracy" which is and has always been an intent of gain model to enable international rule and domination for US interests and US corporations, ever since the start of "US Imperialism" in 1898. Beware Ireland: do not bow down. "We decide something, then put it out there and wait a while to see what happens. If there is no big shouting and no riots because most people do not understand what has been decided, then we will continue - step by step until there is no turning back." — Jean Claude Juncker This comment is not directed at Juncker as such, but at his class of the ruling elites and how they "operate". There are four main strategies here, and 2 main declared principles. Principle 1: No democratic decision making process. Strategy 1: Delaying tactics Strategy 2: Throwing the ball into your "court", the court of the "masses". Principle 2: They think you are too stupid to grasp the depths of their decisions, so they mask these. Strategy 3: The route of least resistance Strategy 4: The step by step approach, as long as there is no resistance from the sleeping crowds, the next level is introduced until so much has been invested that turning back isn't an option anymore.
    2
  308. Being belligerent means to play "three unwise monkeys": screaming ones favoritism from the rooftops, only hearing what one likes to hear, and only seeing what suites the own feelings...
    2
  309. "Tool" of the American Century. A "Young Global Leader"-baby...
    2
  310. Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or the British Empire's Mackinder/Pivot of History before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their geographical advantage. With re. to how tools to implement the strategy are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..." Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves. Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as Kissinger implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combated by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today. Today as we watch on, the Ukraine is being burnt to the "last Ukrainian soldier" accompanied by cheers of "...but, but, but they had a choice!!" Poland will be next to be given a "choice," if the Ukraine fails as US/Western proxy and tool, in a long list of previous examples of the Washington DC/Pentagon-steered global strategy.
    2
  311. "If I don't steal your house, somebody else will" Zionist quote from the year 2121... Saying that this war started on Oct 7th, is like saying the war in the Ukraine started in 2022...
    2
  312. After WW2 the USA (4% of global pop.) had 50% of the world's wealth. Obviously this was the "good life" and "good ol' days" many Americans are still dreaming of which started ending during the 1990s. Before, they had lived well at the expense of 95% of the planet which was left with the other 50% of wealth/resources. Today (US is still roughly 4% of gobal pop.) it has declined to 30% of global wealth, rapidly falling every year, and if East Asia is going to rise futher demanding more wealth and resources for their own populations which are on average poorer that Americans (and Westerners), what are US leaders going to do about it? Thoughts and prayers?
    2
  313. After the abolition of the slave trade, and later slavery, the "we must end the slave trade"-excuse was almost immediately used as a pretext by systems intent on gain (US/European imperialist powers who stood in the position of POWER to benefit), in order to cover up their territorial ambitions in Africa with a "nice sounding story," aka the pretext. A few hundred thousand slaves were "saved" by the good guys of history, who could now walk head-held-high and proud of their achievements, while at the same time, MILLIONS of blacks were becoming entrapped and CONTROLLED by their the new imperialist white masters and their local converted imperialist instruments of power ...and out of all of those globally committed WRONGS, arose the socialist movement. The "beast" bred its own future "enemy." Slavery was abolished, because there was more to be gained by abolishing it, than by perpetuating it.   WHAT WAS SYSTEMICALLY GAINED by imperialist systems in Great Britain, in order to more than compensate for the systemic loss of human property? If one studies this in detail, the slave owners were paid up front, whilst the system of taxpayers in Great Britain ended up paying right through to the year 2015: a giant re-distribution of money, from the bottom, to the top. A giant vacuum cleaner, siphoning gain from the bottom to the top. From the hard labor off the backs of the British working classes, and middle classes, to the ample and bottomless bank accounts of the British ruling elites. Whilst the LITTLE TOOLS (mostly commoners all over the Empire) at the time, the 19th Century, were chest-thumping about how they were "fighting to end slavery," their masters employed them to implement the NEXT WRONG: the enslavement of even more helpless millions in hitherto unconquered regions of the planet (colonialism/imperialism which peaked around 1900). In the above regard, it is interesting to study Eric Prince's (ex-Blackwater/Iraq) recent statements with regards to re-introducing colonialism, because, of course, I'm sure it's only because he cares so much about black lives, and corrupt African/ME leaders... The modern prince WILL find his pathetic little imperialist tools: nothing in the current US/collective West system will stop him. History will rhyme, because the masses are blind. Is there any stopper within the current system who will stop the modern Machiavellian prince? In fact the OPPOSITE is true, in that forces from within the collective West (profit oriented models) will even aid him in "fighting corruption," and (some/most) talking heads on TV will even cheer him on, just like imperialists set out to "fight slavery" or the "primitive beliefs" (sic.) in Africa 100 or 200 years ago. Why? Because just like 100 and 200 years ago, majorities were either too stupid to notice how they were being employed as tools, or too greedy to care. History will rhyme again, because it rhymed in the past, and it will rhyme in the future. And back home, far away from the destruction this modern prince will perform in the name of freedumb and democracy? Some folks back home will find these meddlers to be cool. Some will despise them and call them out. Some will love Eric Prince, and his armies, and some will hate him for what he'll be doing. Whatever. It doesn't matter. Because they will all argue and argue, and debate and debate endlessly, and talk and talk and talk an talk... Because THAT is how divide and rule is implemented, and kept in place as THE top strategy of power, by the deceitful top tiers of power who run off with the money in the background, while everybody else is talking endlessly.
    2
  314. If one understands what happened to China during their "Century of Humiliation," means that one then already has the template to understand what is happening today. One can use the historical "template" and apply it in the same manner. What happened to China during that era, is how "divide and rule" worked in the past, and still works today. Create or deepen a political problem, and then wait for the little minions benefiting from the outside POWER of imperialism to come asking for "help." Use their "plight" (artificially enhanced) to meddle, or "leverage" (power dynamics) crises into "eternal problems," sit by and do nothing as problems foment into violence, revolutions, and wars, or carry out other forms of privatized interference (corporatism) under government protection, or without. Whatever works, details really REALLY DON'T MATTER. Once "fomented troubles" rise out of hand, claim to "just want peace." Then use the little minions as favourites (favouritism = a technique within the "divide and rule" strategy of power) to destabilize an entire region, steer them against other weaker entities, and/or employ them as instruments of power (the "tools" of power dynamics), or create overseas regions as a staging area far from the home base (the "unsinkable aircraft carriers"/like colonial-era Hong Kong), etc. Whatever works for the desired region to be divided/conquered or where CONTROL and domination is required for the economic systems of gain. There is no way that current day Chinese leaders will not have learnt their very own historical lesson, and allow their very own history to repeat/rhyme, and allow such outside meddling in the own systems to gain traction, AGAIN for a second time. Every nation or state has its own "Never again!" European citizens today are still suffering from the hegemonial ambitions of some of their leaders, teaming up with Washington DC/the Pentagon. These citizens, usually around 50% of entire populations, suffer directly ("heating or eating"), or indirectly (soaring inflation), these are all "effects," not to be confused with "causes" (see concept of retro causality, one of the most easily misused ways to skew a timeline of events). Some eventually even end up in the muddy trenches. Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or Mackinder before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their (temporary) GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER. With re. to how tools are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..." Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves. Note also, that a "plan" and the strategy to effect the plan, are two different things. Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as the USA implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combatted by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today. Outsiders intent on playing the game, use the revolutionary spirit, in order to hop onto useful dissent, strengthen it, and insert levers which they can pry open to gain own advantages. Beijing is certainly 100% aware of this, so everything you are witnessing today is a political EFFECT, not a political "cause" as some leaders wish to mislead us towards. Everything you are being told about Berlin, in stages after 1894, 1904, 1907, and 1912, with gathering momentum, were EFFECTS, not CAUSES. That was, based on observation, outside powers with the intention to "divide and rule" Europe, by encroaching/encircling the major continental power, which has never changed throughout recent modern history. The ONLY factor which changed over the last few centuries, was the "major continental power" which had to be CONTROLLED by the outside power who wanted a competitive advantage. The historical parallel, is the "Chinese Century of Shame"-historicity, and is well-known at least to the 1.4 billion inhabitants of China today. Certainly, they also do not wish to become "carved up" and ruled over by outsiders again, for a second time. The template therefore predicts a similar outcome, that of the more encroachment/encirclement, the more likeliness of the "breakout attempt" in some possible future. Obvious solution for a more stable world, stop the encroachment/encirclement. Both historically (post-1900) as well as our recent history (post-2000) there seems little incentive for those with the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to do so, but rather the repeated attempts to search for tools to do such encroachment/encirclement FOR the outside power/s intent on gain. Empires do not become dominant because they hand out candy and bouquets of flowers, as most realists are fully aware of, therefore the wise advice to always keep a just/wise "balance of powers. If not, fail. Power flows to where the attention goes first, in geopolitics, in the form of political policies. These can be studied by looking at the events themselves, not what another human being tells you (incl. this essay, which doesn't tell you anything, but implores you to start focusing on the well-known events themselves, from which one can then infer the underlying hidden policies, strategies, or objectives). If you live in East Asia, beware of the "dividers". The hawks will come looking for "buck catchers" and the doves will disguise it as the "helping friends"-narrative = i.e. the template of modern western imperialism. Hawks and doves working in close unison, although stated as being opposite poles within their own US/collective West mindset. They WILL come to you, same way as they came to the Ukraine, following the 1990s.
    2
  315. This is a small-scale example of what Carl Schmidt, a Nazi, advised corporations to do after WW2 had liberated the world from colonialism: MISuse the international court systems, in order to drag weaker countries into endless court cases they could never win against the money-backed systems of corporate greed and one-sided treaties. Entire countries could simply be forced to give up trying achieving their just rights, because it would be too expensive. There are no more US/collective West "Smedley-Butlers" anymore today, because the grinding down of weaker nations and opposition takes place in courts.
    2
  316. The word "casualty" includes "wounded" or troops removed from the battlefield, as a result of accidents, PTSD, friendly fire, etc. so that figure could be accurate. It does not mean "dead".
    2
  317. Those who cannot see are blind, well-fed and content in the "Bread and Circuses"-existences. Their leaders know they overwhelmingly won't complain too much until they become overburdened by hardships themselves.
    2
  318. ​ @JJRM8  Nice attempt of dropping your "pin" on the timeline when it suites your narrative. The US strategy started in the 1990s, after the collapse of the USSR, waaaaay before the visible actions you mentioned.
    2
  319. Sorry, but you don't get to choose the "date/event" when this conflict started. "Questionable cause" (wiki) Questionable cause is a general type of error with many variants. Its primary basis is the confusion of association with causation, either by inappropriately deducing (or rejecting) causation or a broader failure to properly investigate the cause of an observed effect. Wrong direction (reverse causation) – cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.[59] The consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause. (end of) Generally well-informed viewers of this channel do not "cherry pick" dates stating "history starts here", or follow the MSM-programming as pre-2003 (War on Iraq).
    2
  320.  @marylander3798  Right from the start, despite efforts to claim to be "neutral," GB favored the side of the immigrants they enabled entering the Levant, steering the process with "quotas." Their "favorites" (immigrants) were a "divide and rule"-technique, practiced all over the Empire. Create a "favorite" as a "proxy" (strategy) to implement own goals. The own goal of the British Empire was purely selfish: to create an ingroup which would protect the Suez Canal, from the potential attack via the landbridge of Palestine/Sanai Dessert, towards Suez by any potential rival northern Empire... [see Mackinder/Heartland Theory/Pivot of History/1904]
    2
  321.  @bobbyd6040  @robertwarner You guys are actually both correct. What your comments explain is how the strategy of "divide and rule" works on a domestic level. The sub-technique is to "create dissention" within a population, which can then be "leveraged" (strategy) by those in power, and who control the media. The intention is the creation of "teams of supporters" for causes, which then waste their energy in eternal dissent...
    2
  322.  @marylander3798  Yes, totally agreed. That is not also true with regards to foreign policy, incl. ME policy, but also domestic politics. It is incredible which percentages of Americans agree on basic human "rights" like affordable health care, or stricter gun control (all around 75% in favor), but they won't get it because their own politicians block such initiatives because of (mostly) corporate interests. That points at a much wider issue, which is that US power players, elites, and politicians mostly "side" with corporate interests, against democratic means (demos = " the people"). As you probably know, the USA is not a good example of "democracy" in which "the people" collectively determine the objectives and goals.
    2
  323. ​​ @davidkendal1361  The "buffer zone" mentality of those who argue without facts. You mean like Poland after WW1, which was graciously allowed to fight a war of agression on its neighbors as a "buck catcher" of the WW1 Allies, to create a "buffer zone" for itself composed of around 10 million people (east of the Curzon Line), which were never asked whether they wanted to be in this "Poland" imposed on them? That worked out super great, didn't it? Twenty years later, in 1939, Stalin wanted this "buffer zone" resulting from the post-WW1 limited wars (early-1920s) back, and made a little deal with Berlin...
    2
  324. The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail. The faster the rest of the world realizes this, the better. Washington DC power mongers employ the divide and rule technique of power. In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Europe was divided, with a ruling. This strategy is often misunderstood, in narratives composed mostly of "being friends" or "being rivals/enemies", even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover... When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most? From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003 "What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." (end of) There is no doubt that Washington DC is attempting to repeat this "success" (pov) in the rising powers of Asia. The strategy can be observed to be implemented in the same way as was set up post-1900 in Europe, but in Europe the "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer theory) were Great Britain and France. Today, it is India being used in the same role as France was 100 years ago. In case of a wider war in Asia, as India is set up against China, qui bono if all lose? The technique Washington DC employed up to the year 2000, is an almost exact repeat of the technique they used to overpower Europe around the year 1900: DIVIDE AND RULE.
    2
  325. So true. Kennedy said:"Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy, or of a collective death-wish for the world." Biden said: "First time since the Cuban Missile Crisis, we have a direct threat of the (use of) a nuclear weapon if in fact things continue down the path they are going." "Sleepy Joe" was a bit late with his realisation, unlike the Kennedy admistration, which made a compromise agreement and averted "MAD".
    2
  326. Remember all their names. But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy. All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map. Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers... Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible. It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"... Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country? Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting. Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this: - You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections. - You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media. - You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual. - You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way. - You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference. Here is what you can do, easily: 1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours) 2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed 3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
    2
  327.  @the_famous_reply_guy  Thank you. Since I restrict my analyses to a "systems/strategy"-tier of events, I'm not blinded by the background agendas which are in place, for imperialist expansion.
    2
  328.  @neutralitystudies  Thank you for the interesting guests, some I've not heard of before.
    2
  329. He'll get the same sane "up yours" from me, than Bush got from me when he said "either for us or against us." Me: Eff off. Nobody owes the USA/collective West anything.
    2
  330.  @garyddlewis3067  Explains how divide-and-rule works, independent of the restraints imposed on your own thinking, by your own biases or fallacies in reasoning.
    2
  331. Government can prohibit private individuals to own gold, aka "make owning gold illegal". It happened in the USA during the 1930s. Back then, citizens were forced to sell their privately owned gold for a fixed price.
    2
  332.  @vgstb  A good description of how divide-and-rule has been implemented since the inception of the USA since 1776. First victims were their neighbours: the First Nations. The same was done. They allied with some, to overpower the others. Then, once they were all "down" in power, they stuck them into reservation and took the land and resources.
    2
  333. The escalation did not start yesterday. Why do you choose this date as "start of history"?
    2
  334.  @HomeCast-td2tu  It'll be too frustrating to inform people of how the world REALLY works. Do you think I wish to be crucified? 🙂
    2
  335. @ Agreed. I think the intention is to "cut" the discussions between us "plebs" so we cannot exchange ideas in real time. That is the biggest advantage we the plebs have today, as opposed to 50 or 100 years ago when communication took much longer, and people were not as connected. cheers
    2
  336. Be prepared for grainy video evidence of "the Irians attacking poor sailors just exercising the fweedumb of the seas" 😂 That will certainly tuck at the emotions of the "fweedumb lovers" and make them weally weally angwey 🤣
    2
  337. The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself. Elsewhere, wars were instigated, not avoided, "false flagged" into being, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, leading to disunity in the world, for the advantage of the dividers, in the USA. ------------------------------------- "The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015 Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA. That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia). Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, which is that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory." That IS the premier priority of the powers not IN Eurasia, and still is. Here are the critical questions. If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division? How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"? Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power, or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power. It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
    2
  338. They want the children to see the "rebels" as little miniature "Luke Skywalkers" and "Han Solos". If they called Han Solo a "terrorist", the movie would flop...
    2
  339. Not an "intelligence failure." Rather it was the "failure of intelligence." Only fools would have believed the WMDs narrative 20 years ago. Same as only fools believed that "Spain attacked the USA" (Remember the Maine) 125 years ago, which kickstarted the era of US global imperialism. Same as believing that North Vietnam attacked the USA in the "Gulf of Tonkin." Lying is a strategy of power. The only fools are those individuals who believe the eternal lies...
    2
  340.  @nomazuluthatayouareaninspi2179  What is so funny? Please inform me, in detail, so we can "laugh" together...
    2
  341. The Treaty of Versailles was, according to many historians and their various analyses, the death knell of Europe. The ability of people to blame others for the effects of own behaviour, rather than to blame themselves for their own decisions, castes long shadows. Individuals should avoid debates following the principles of "right/wrong" since such debates go around in circles forever. Debaters cherry-picking their "facts" and "dates." Obviously, everybody has a different concept of "right/wrong." Instead, point out causal effects of own actions imposed, and which were not a result of a "round table" negotiation such as The Concert of Europe was a century previously. These decisions after the Napoleonic Wars, to create a balance of powers per mutual agreement after a major tragedy which affected all, worked amazingly well for 100 years, despite the limited wars which continued after 1815. The first step of those seeking peace was to acknowledge the security risks of all the major powers, but also avoiding the childish "finger pointing" at all the various hotheads who had previously escalated limited crises/engagements of regional character, thereby escalating these into a world-wide war, with millions of dead and millions more negatively affected. With the Treaty of Versailles, Europe went down the drain when their leaders decided to abandon the principle of Machiavellian "fairness", and impose an IMbalance of power de jure at a green table, without the deterrence to enforce it in the future. Not a "Machiavellian" principle, but the reasoning of weak minds who know they wouldn't have to face consequences if anything went wrong (the biggest examples of the "mommy's basement hero" in history were the "winners" of WW1 for that matter). By not inviting all, REGARDLESS of the excuses made, they thereby created a de facto reality which was the same as pre-1914. The security concerns of a neighbour was simply ignored. The NWO was dictated onto one of the neighbours (Versailles) whilst another was simply not invited either. This an observation based on the facts. Why was the situation of pre-1914 recreated again post-1918 at Versailles? In 1919 Machiavellian fairness was thrown out the window again when one of the powers was encroached upon by an "encirclement strategy" AGAIN. The first encirclement took place in stages starting in the 1890s, and continued following the year 1900. After WW1 the encirclement strategy was continued again; instead of a small number of large encircling powers as before 1914, there were now (enabled by the Armistice and Versailles) a larger number of smaller encirclers after 1919, who either allied with or aligned with the "winners" (France/GB/USA). Thereby, wanted or not, these new smaller states became the "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer Theory) of outsiders. European history of 1,000 years, as either France or the Holy Roman Empire tried to encircle each other (2-front war danger), trying to get the vital "upper hand" in a struggle for Western European "top dog"-status, continued. Just like in physics, every force creates a counterforce. The intention to "keep down/keep out/encircle" a neighbour, created an effect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The observation today is therefore that Europeans will lose again, because after 1990 this marching onto the borders of a neighbour, and encroaching on a neighbour (also "by proxy"), ignoring constantly repeated warnings, was continued. Only this time the neighbour "encroached upon" with an encirclement strategy was Russia. The "morphed tools" now included all Central European nations, too blinded by narratives to unite in time to avoid their own "tool status" AGAIN. This is an observation, empowered by a million bits of data from history, and which cannot be countered, because it actually happened. This reality forces the obfuscators and "whataboutism"-fanboys if history into all kinds of contorted and distorted gish-galloping attempts at deflecting, word trickery and ingroup bonding, to "get the ingroup in line again". The "marching route" towards Russia was: - Eastern Europe - Balkans - Black Sea Region/Caucasus (southern pincer of encroachment) - Baltic Region/Scandinavia (northern pincer of encroachment) Those who implement their step-by-step, SYSTEMIC EXPANSION always only want peace...peace...PEACE....PIECE. A little "piece" of... All they wish to do is "eat a PIECE of salami, slice by slice by slice" and they are all very friendly. Look, they even wag their NATO-tails. All of this is "history rhyming. Then they think people are too stupid to notice what they are doing. All they wish to do is deflect from a very simple reality: they need YOU as a tool, to overpower your neighbour FOR them. In the big picture, the story is to deceive people into doing unto others what they would never consider acceptable if "done unto them" (systems). As stated in the first paragraph, individuals can argue their own personal rights/wrongs until they are blue in the face, huff and puff about how great they are, but it is not going to protect them from the harmful causal effects of the own systemic expansive aims as implemented by the strategists in the capital cities, or by the so-called "friends" who employ them as tools, buffer zones, as happily marching "useful idiots/innocents," ideological propagandists, a "new best friend" with a nice new shiny red "bullseye" painted on the back (lightning rods), or otherwise employed as proxies, without "round table"-consent of all involved powers (aka Machiavellian concept of fairness). Beware of bowing down to the narrative spinners and framers. How the narrative is spun in order the create a smokescreen for the hidden aims and agendas, reveals the strategists and their ulterior motives, which are the same today as 100 and 125 years ago. History does not "start" with the REaction. It starts with the actions. Pity if one lives in countries collectively too blind to see.
    2
  342. The prelude to that was the British invasion of 1904, and the subsequent western habit of "buying" local governments in order to get a strategic and military advantage for the own systems (imperialism). That reality doesn't make the Chinese invasion "right", but it does explain why it happened. China carried out a preventive invasion, to avoid Western imperialist powers from encroaching and surrounding it, after the Civil War was over, and the Truman Doctrine made them "the enemy" of the entire Western world.
    2
  343.  @gerryburntwood9617  Thank you for reading, and considering. Peace 🙏👍
    2
  344. For such a short comment, you sure specialized in exposing your cognitive biases, by committing formal and informal fallacies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
    2
  345. Geography is essential, and the "advantages" of power are a mix. If some of the ingredients are missing, any attempts at hegemony will fail... On top of "organizational advantages: The advantage in power afforded to a system by a geographical distance from rival powers, in combination with parallel factors like an advanced political system with entrenched institutions, wide-ranging trade- and financial system, high population density, a skilled and highly educated work force, favorable climate, abundant raw materials or safe access to these, high level of industrialization, a technological edge, modern infrastructure, strong military, and a well-organized society on all levels, with a stabilizing wide-ranging unity within the own borders.
    2
  346.  @pj_ytmt-123  The Ottoman Empire employed strategies of "imperialism". That means drawing lines between people who were never asked what they wanted for themselves. The technique used by all empires and expansive systems, is known as "divide and rule/conquer".
    2
  347.  @pj_ytmt-123  Notice that with regards to my arguments. They are "anti-imperialist" in nature. The core argument is that everything we witness today, has a clear causal chain of events one can follow through all the way to WW1. Not before, under Ottoman rule, because the "watershed" of history for the ME was WW1, during which the Ottoman Empire was the collapsing side without the power to influence events here after 1918. One can therefore blame the Ottoman Empire for everything which happened in the ME before WW1, but not after WW1. After WW1 the "deciders" were mainly France and Great Britain.
    2
  348. * Footnote: After a 40 billion aid package to the Ukraine, US Congressperson Dan Crenshaw engaged in a Twitter shame game with fellow Republicans who who had voted against the aid package. Note, Crensaw's military background, therefore knowledge about strategies. “Yeah, because investing in the destruction of our adversary’s military, without losing a single American troop, strikes me as a good idea. You should feel the same.” The grand strategy objective of rather letting them fight somewhere else is Sun Tzu's Art of War, which is a reference to the strategy of "the proxy" again. The outside system (quote) "invests" in an own propped-up friendly system fighting in a war against the own rival system without becoming directly involved. One might think that such wars are modern occurrences or anecdotal evidence, which is incorrect: Creating and firing on a "proxy" which incidently was "simply standing up to Russia" as a recurring theme in US history. The proxy is one of the most common techniques in strategy employed by all states and empires who had the intent of gain, and on all levels.
    2
  349. * Footnote: Winston Churchill stated this hypocrisy of "judging others, while doing the same thing" best in 1899 when he wrote "What about the Philippines?—Oh champions of the cause of Freedom!", obviously mocking the standpoint that the USA could hardly come to the protection of a brave nation fighting for freedom (Boers), whilst engaged in a war which had the intent to subject the inhabitants of the Philippenes, fighting for their freedom from foreign domination. The USA had painted itself into corner, as duly noted by William Jennings Bryan who had emerged as a dominant force in the Democratic Party and was three times nominee for President of the United States: " ... our refusal to recognize the rights of the Filipinos to self-government will embarrass us if we express sympathy with those in other lands who are struggling to follow the doctrines set forth in the Declaration of Independence."
    2
  350. The USA/collective West will try to break it up, and set neighbors up against neighbors... I wonder how? 🤔
    2
  351. The narrative of the divide-and-rule strategy is turned around by the MSM stooges, into the "defend our friends" and "stand for freedom"-doublespeak.
    2
  352. A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer. The people of West Asia (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) 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 outsiders have made use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... 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? Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games. ------------------------------------- The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easy to divide people. First Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance. Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent. Give a weak mind money, and they will dance for the dividers... Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games. -------------------------------------- The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, 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. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours. Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be used invisibly in times of peace, AND in times of crisis and war equaly. Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war... Insert levers of lies, mistrust... Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies... Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power... Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
    2
  353. The Middle East. Unfortunately, the people of the Levant (most of which are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. First it was Rome/Constantinople, then the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (ME was the "playground" during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent: classical "divide and rule". As stated, the USA would rather see the region in perpetual state of "politics by other means" (Clausewitz/On War) rather than lose the grip on it. For that the constant violence all over the ME are very convenient in propaganda, to rile up the masses with (quote) "beheaded baby talk"... After the watershed in history which was WW1 (end of the rule of the Ottomans), what was the status quo and who intended to change it? The indigenous population, or the EUROPEAN "empires" and their policies and agendas?
    2
  354. ​ @jullietmburu9672  Yup. Imperialists are again, after a short break, "organizing" their "violence" as the imperialistic aim and goal. To attain the rule (de jure) and domination (de facto) of the own systems OVER other independent systems which were in any particular place in the world first (aka a given status quo on the timeline of history). "The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do." Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    2
  355. It's the norm these days. Longer comments are often removed by YT, although I haven't yet figured out the exact MO.
    2
  356. An "enabler." (role in strategy) Enabling the system of global "divide and rule" to perpetuate, as explained on the small tier by great minds. George Carlin BTW is such a great mind. As always it is only the concepts behind the WORDS which are important, NOT the "messenger." Carlin simply explains the strategy of POWER, the "divide and rule"-strategy of POWER, and he does it in another context, on another tier, on the US domestic political level of events. Search for "George Carlin explains divide and rule." Hilarious, unless of course...one is waging the "but, but, but"-finger around. Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout... It's how "divide and rule" works. "Period," lol... Even minions lower down, going around calling other minions "idiots" are a useful tool in this DaR-world, as they ALL end up arguing in endless cycles. Even age-old wisdoms eventually end up in the "divide," and create a rift between the lower tiers of the people, enabling the "rule" of the HIGHER TIERS OF POWER. In US domestic politics: "We have to defeat this divide-and-rule strategy, which goes back thousands of years. That’s how the few CONTROL the many. Yes, there are divisions over reproductive rights and gun control, but many policies that would transform this country get combined Left-Right support." (edit: combined left-right support for a COMMON cause = "unity") Four time US presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, Sun Magazine interview, 2019 No, everybody who spots its implementation in power politics, is not "an idiot." AVOID THE UNITY (TOP DOWN) = AVOID THE COMMON CAUSE FROM BECOMING IMPLIMENTED (BOTTOM UP) When all the little minions are arguing, pointing fingers, punching it out, then POWERS move in the shadows and implement the OWN goals. How it works on a lower tier, like at the company level? The same. The bigger the company, the BIGGER the achievements gained by divisions. Corporations even call their own "divide and rule"-setups "divisions." The execs mix all kind of people who naturally don't get along, then offer the resulting lower tiers different pay, different perks, different conditions. Why? What would happen if all the little minions lower down in the company hierarchy saw eye-to-eye on all issues? Correct. They will overwhelmingly unite, and then get together to ask for more money, better working conditions, etc, and simply ALL leave the company altogether (unity) if a fair solution isn't offered. Since the company will most likely go bust if ALL lower tier employees leave altogether, the manager/owner class uses the "divide and rule" technique of POWER. Set the lower tier minions up against each other. OBSERVE LEARN If some of the employees/minions are unhappy, offer a few of the employees/minions better conditions, and create jealousy and envy. If only some of the workers strike, its not a problem: hire strikebreakers to replace them, and then play the long game of dragging feet with negotiations and see who's got the longest breath (strategy)... EMPIRES work the same way. You already HAVE the "template" as Carlin explained it. Only the tiers of POWER changes. The roles remain exactly the same. Find out how this template is perpetually implemented, or suffer the consequences. No "system" will tell YOU, the little minion. Not your own "empire" which employed it. They won't inform YOU the little minion and tool HOW it works, and WHY it perpetuates, because it is ALSO their own most powerful strategy. Why does such a transparent strategy persist? "Ten percent of any population is cruel, no matter what, and 10 percent is merciful, no matter what, and the remaining 80 percent can be moved in either direction." [Susan Sontag] The "system" is "self-perpetuating" (Noam Cholmsky).
    2
  357. The "freedom and democracy"-argument as a cover story for ulterior motives has a long history. THE PROTOTYPE COLOR REVOLUTION "For Jefferson, as he wrote to Abigail (in private), it was the end of an epoch. It was the end of one epoch and the beginning of another in Europe too. ... In Holland, a bourgeois democratic revolution ... who had been instructed in the American Revolution by John Adams, were cruelly suppressed or driven into exile..." Adams and Jefferson : a Revolutionary dialogue / Merrill D. Peterson, Digital Library of Georgia Online Plattform Jefferson and Adams, no doubt the "inspiration" for hundreds who would follow in their wake, such as Victoria "handing out candy to the MAIDAN" Nuland, as "revolutionary training experts", trying to divide other systems for the own gain. Setting up such "Color Revolutions" throughout their history, and training/supporting revolutionaries in the name of freedom, whilst in reality simply expanding the own spheres of interests by dividing others, has had a long American history. The divide and rule strategy of potentially damaging opposing systems (in the above case, in Europe), are kept in a state of revolutions and upheaval using the "freedom - revolution - democracy" arguments. Obviously, at this early point in history Washington DC had very little power. But as her power grew, so did the influence of the own divide and rule/conquer techniques. Asia beware. Keep a lookout for the tell-tale signs of a US led divide and rule strategy, to set up Asians against each other as a repeat of history. Making use of the own geographical advantage of distance, the US advance via staging areas (like Hawaii, or the Philippines 1898) continued one step at a time, as other nations were set up against each other with clear intent, as revealed by private discussions and letters...not the kind words and speeches intended for the consumption of the MSM news readers, since even waaaay back then all MSM was already in the hands of the billionaire class. A few years later... "From the outset of hostilities, Roosevelt, his pro-Japanese sympathies notwithstanding, privately wished for the continued presence of Russia in East Asia to serve as a counterweight against Japanese expansionism. He perceived that Japanese domination of the region could prove as detrimental to American "Open Door" policy objectives as had the Russian domination. As early as March 19, 1904, he expressed in a letter to his friend Cecil Arthur Spring Rice (then the secretary to the British delegation in St. Petersburg) a hopeful supposition that "the two powers will fight until both are fairly well exhausted, and that then peace will come on terms which will not mean the creation of either a yellow peril or a Slav peril.” The astonishing pace of Japanese arms through the succeeding months gradually convinced the President that a rapid cessation of the war was necessary to preserve Russian influence in the contested region. Writing to Whitelaw Reid, the American ambassador to Britain, on June 5, 1905, Roosevelt admitted that he "should be sorry to see Russia driven out of East Asia,” and averred that "driven out she will surely be if the war goes on.” In sum, he stated to Senator Henry Cabot Lodge on June 16, 1905, "It is best that (Russia) should be left face to face with Japan so that each may have a moderative action on the other." 1994 Closing the Open Door Policy: American Diplomatic and Military Closing the Open Door Policy: American Diplomatic and Military Reactions to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 Reactions to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 Jonathan Bennett Ault College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences (pp.49-51) The same so-called good guys of history, because for these powerful US statesmen and their willing local tools, "crimes are those that others commit" (quote Noam Chomsky). These dividers of entire nations and continents are above the law. Don't ever expect the American legal system to punish such advocates of divide and rule and the bloodshed it results in. Don't expect a majority of Americans to call out their leaders for what they are doing. They either haven't been informed, or don't understand because of their warmongering MSM, don't know, don't care, or even if they did, are not going to stop their leaders... The overwhelming number of Americans, in the sinecure comfort of their "mommy's basements"-existences, are not like Noam Cholmsky, John Mearsheimer, or Brian Berletic, and many others who know what their government is up to and are actually willing to speak out. They are the real heroes of history, following in the footsteps of such "prototype whistleblowers" like Smedley-Butler... The "revolutionary training"-experts care little about the subsequent bloodshed. They are in complete disregard the biblical rule "do not steal/kill", those responsible will "wash hands in innocence", and "point the finger elsewhere" as deflection from their own actions. It is also arguably the cheapest way to expand the own sphere of influence, and gain markets for own products, which is why they do it. It is a cheap way to aquire spheres of influence because the heavy lifting, and bloodshed, is borne by local individuals who had been set up against each other, using the emotions of individuals to create little systems of "revolutionary"-spririts... Asians beware... The "dividers" WILL come for you again.
    2
  358. It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal. They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty. Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.” “The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.” “Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”. “We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.” Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control. What that would have meant, we see today. Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
    2
  359. In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality." And that's what these gentlemen do. America's allies and enemies in Europe are still being turned against each other and then burned to ensure that this inequality remains. This is how “divide and conquer” is implemented. They pit European and Eurasian nations against each other. The UK and US playbook for more than 100 years. Read Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Brzinzki (Grand Chessboard, 1997). Money is their vehicle to allocate resources. It's the physical resources of the planet which are limited, and who CONTROLS the flow of printable money, controls the flow of resources. That is how those in CONTROL keep some "down" and others "out" of their own systems of gain. Obviously, there are not enough resources for the entire planet to live the same lifestyle as those systems in CONTROL. It has nothing to do with "meritocracy" but is a PREMEDITATED strategy, and how well your systems do financially or systemically (countries/companies/etc.), depends on their LOCATION ON THE MAP (geopolitics), or whether they bow down and "lick boots" or not.
    2
  360. The "Western moral superiority"-fans need to wake up to the reality that the good ol' days are coming to an end. In 1945 when everybody else was down in power, and exhausted (reality), the USA could almost single-handedly employ the DIVIDE-AND-RULE STRATEGY over the rest of the planet to skim off the world's wealth at the expense of 95% of the planet, disguising the desirable hegemony as philanthropy and magnanimous benevolence. As the so-called "Cold War" (name branding, or a recognition factor in emotional appeals) ended, around the year 1990, the USA as sole hegemon could have done their best, but they chose to do their worst (PNAC, and so on). Because every watershed of history offers the opportunity for positive change. What is done with the opportunity, exposes the system/s. By the 1990s, the rest of the planet had arisen from those ashes of 500 years of exploitive colonialism, 30 years of worldwide US/European imperialist wars (1914-45), and more than 40 years of so-called "Cold War" (1947-90) filled with proxy bloodshed which kept everyone in Africa, South- and Central America, and in Asia down in power, and which affected every corner of the globe...except the USA and a few "new superior European favourites" (lol) which could act as financiers using their distance from the war zones they instigated. During the 1990s a watershed appeared, and the opportunity was allowed to slip by, accompanied by a host of apologetics by the "pointing fingers in-crowd" wishing to keep others either down in power or unity, or out of their systems of rule and control. Now the good ol' days are over. If you're not in the club of US/collective West "superiority" (sic.), just remember: The USA/collective West have never had any ulterior motives (lol, just kidding). All they have ever wanted to ever do, was "save the world from the bad guys" (more lol). It IS just like that, because the WEST says so themselves, then don't argue (super lol). "In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population ...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality." Obviously, simple math means that it left the rest of the world (around 94%) to somehow get along with the rest left over. To have considered that as even remotely fair, regardless of any other circumstances, speaks volumes. Today it is still roughly 30% in the hands of 12% of the global population, as "the rest/no the WEST" rises. Again, silence on this speaks volumes. How were in the past (Age of European Empires), and are the 1%-ters in the West and their international friends TODAY (global elites/globalists) going to ensure that this desirable and ADMITTED (quote) "inequality" and dollar hegemony continues? THAT is the question they are trying to deflect from, with endless cycles of circular reasoning. HOW TO HANG ON TO THE "GOOD OL' DAYS." Answer: With the divide and rule technique of top-down power, in efforts to split the main BRICS nations, and bring down any other rising and stable region of power the planet which refuses to be vacuumed off like a giant hoover (corporatism), splitting it apart with a NEW COLD WAR, then blame everybody else. They have destroyed multipolarity once, with Versailles and other top-down measures, and they seek to avoid the rise of multipolarity again. The superior USA/collective West, where you have the freedom of speech to say what you want, and those who rule the world (haves with the money) have the freedom to fire you. Guess who has the true power? Or, in other words, they have the money to hire you for a well-paid position (the "carrot" of incentive) if you say what they like. The "stick" will fire you, should you criticize the mastah too overtly... If you live in Africa, Asia, or anywhere else, don't rely on any "superior westerner" (sic.) or local collaborator within the DIVIDE-AND-RULE setup of the planet to tell what I will inform you about: How their power works. People who are confronted with uncomfortable truths, simply fall into the "let's not talk about that"-mode because they WANT to point their fingers somewhere else, which is a cognitive bias or fallacy in reasoning. "When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie." - Yevgeny Yevtushenko. When the truth of the new reality finally sets in they fall silent and do not speak, confusing the concept of silence with the concept of strength. Some say the most dangerous of all animals are the stupid. I say, it is the silent. I am warning the peoples of Africa, and Asia, and South & Central America against my own so-called leaders and the people who follow these types. Regardless of all the apologetics, the USA/collective West are still imperialist systems to the core, and it is exposed by the mainstream rhetoric: There has never been a war of systemic and ideological expansion these imperialist supporters did not like, revel in as "fighting bad guys", or ignore, or apologize for. Notice how their "Cold War" (name branding) was your "hot wars" (strategy of power). The mainstream did not care enough for REAL changes 200 or 100 years ago, and they did not care enough 50 years ago, and they did not care 25 years ago, as they do not care today either. Lindey's Law on full display. As long as the wars are far away, and they have their "cheap tanks of gas" and good life, do not expect them as collective to care (exceptions to the rule are of course highlighted by the MSM of the liberal imperialist system. In fact, what a crowd of lessons do the present miseries of the world teach us. Never to have an hereditary leader of any sort; never to let a citizen ally himself with outsiders; never to call in foreign nations to settle domestic differences; never to suppose that any nation will expose itself to war for you for free. There is always a price tag. They are beyond help, because their entire setup is dogmatic. "We are always right." Therefore, balance them out with own systems of power and unity. Then when they come for you, fingers waging, you can actually send them home without consequences. Be nice, but send them home, and solve your own problems peacefully as a commons. Never fall for the rhetoric, because they will NEVER accept that their own constant eternal wars of DIVISION are evil, never mind how many die or end up as refugees, without shelter or in hunger. Balance them out. If not, you will suffer. Support multipolarity, and defend it against the dividers who WILL show up. The so-called "Rules Based Order"? "Neocons" or "imperialists" or whatever: they invent new "name brands" to deflect from an age-old strategy of power: "divide" all others with "rulings". Today these "200 years of rulings" have caused 35.700.000.000.000 dollars of debt. Fact: The "debt" is owed by the US taxpayer. Fact: The GAINS are created by a tiny minority who "invest" this all over the world, mainly TAX FREE. Guess who is "the loser" again and perpetually? (Suggestion: Watch George Carlin explain how divide-and-rule works, here on yt. Nutshell version: burden you collectively, run off with all the effin' money individually)
    2
  361. Von der Leynen has no balls to say what she really thinks. Or rather, "lacks the backbone". Europe's voices of reason can be counted off on the fingers of the hand...
    2
  362. US-style democracy and capitalism is just another man-made system in which divide-and-rule (and the related divide-and-control) flourishes.
    2
  363. A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer. The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... 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? Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games. ------------------------------------- The people of the Africa 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance. Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent. Give a weak mind money, and they will dance for the dividers... Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games. -------------------------------------- The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, 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. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours. Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be used invisibly in times of peace, AND in times of crisis and war equaly. Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war... Insert levers of lies, mistrust... Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies... Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power... 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." [Critical question: Who is "we"?] And that is what they did. And if you lie, steal, and kill, then that is what you are fighting for. America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist 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) regarding Eurasia for the template. 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? That is what empires have always done. Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances... The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."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 individual 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.
    2
  364.  @thomaswayne1852  I'm a hopeless optimist 👍😂
    2
  365. Trump is an imperialist, or at least bows down to "the system". I won't place too much trust in any individual who passes the vetting process of the two-party-duopoly.
    2
  366. Not "turning" but more like "always were tribal" in their thinking. That is what dividers from outside exploit, to carry out divide-and-rule strategies of power.
    2
  367. Asking the wrong questions on a limited scope and timeline will not reveal the divide-and-rule technique. The empire set off on the "G-G Line" from Germany to Greece, during the First Cold War after declaring war ("cold" war/1947). It advanced to the "B-B Line" from the Baltics to the Black Sea (see footnote) after the "peace" was declared to the plebs after the 1990s, and a bright new future pwomised to all the children of history, believers... How long do you think it will take for the empire, wriggling and writhing about ("divide-and-rule"), hopping over here and there ("pivoting") before they reach the "A-A Line"? ‐----------- The "B-B Line". When people start thinking in terms of dichotomies like winning/losing, left/right wing, us/them, right/wrong, unity/division, they are already all "losers." Think in terms of a desirable outcome. If not, lose. Outsiders fabricate the "crescent of crises" around your heartland. "The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015 If outsiders come from outside and start drawing lines on the map, through your homelands without asking the people who live there. Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite. They allow outsiders to play the cards FOR them. Endless wars, constant dissent. Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS. Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down. Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Who wields the POWER? Who has had 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-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
    1
  368. Yes, it's the "default rival" that exists purely because it exists.
    1
  369. A summary of the forged "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", attributed often collectively to "the Jwes" who allegedly wanted to "rule the world". As with every conspiracy theory, there is always a grain of truth to the theory. IT IS DIVIDE-AND-RULE. That is how simple it is, and what constitutes the "grain of truth". Everything else is bs for the plebs who fall for easily-spun mysteries like a bedtime story time for the "child of history," those of a weak mind and submissive brain, therefore easily fooled... The summary from ifunny: 01. Place our agents and helpers everywhere. 02. Take control of the media and use it in propaganda for our plans. 03. Start fights between different races, classes and religions. 04. Use bribery, threats and blackmail to get our way. 05. Use Freemasonic Lodges to attract potential public officials. 06. Appeal to successful people's egos. 07. Appoint puppet leaders who can be controlled by blackmail. 08. Replace royal rule with socialist rule, then communism, then despotism. 09. Abolish all rights and freedoms, except the right of force by us. 10. Sacrifice people when necessary. 11. Eliminate religion; replace it with science and materialism. 12. Control the education system to spread deception and destroy intellect. 13. Rewrite history to our benefit 14. Create entertaining distractions. 15. Corrupt minds with filth and perversion. 16. Encourage people to spy on one another. 17. Keep the masses in poverty and perpetual labor. 18. Take possession of all wealth, property and gold. 20. Introduce a progressive tax on wealth. 19. Use gold to manipulate the markets, cause depressions etc. 21. Replace sound investment with speculation. 22. Make long-term interest-bearing loans to governments. 23. Give bad advice to governments and everyone else. 24. Blame the victim. "Our" = the "ingroup" (group dynamics). Here is the scientific reality, which differs from the conspiracy theory, typically a far-right one: Divide-and-rule is a STRATEGY which GREW ORGANICALLY everywhere where civilisations grew. It is NOT "Jewish" but a systemic approach about how to rule and dominate regions of the globe, and ALSO ORGANICALLY GREW along with other empires on the other side of the globe (China for example, see their strategies of power using deception and a variety of power moves, which are very similar). Attributing it collectively to single group is scapegoating, by the deceivers who use such strategies and find nothing odd or jarring about these, but consider it "normal behaviour". These deceivers wish to fool ALL, even the own "ingroup", and deflect what they cause, by collectively attributing the EFFECTS of their own scheming, to others (strategy of "finger pointing" using many means). Why did these widely different cultures, on different places on the map, all use the SAME or VERY SIMILAR strategies of deception and war by their ruling classes (collectively called "divide-and-rule")? ANSWER: Because they work, regardless of the place on the map, or the point on the timeline. They worked 2000 years ago when the Roman Empire used it in their empire, including the Levant when the Jwes were the victims of it (divided and rule by the Romans). It worked a thousand years ago. It worked in China, and in Africa, and in the Fertile Crescent of Civilization: West Asia, 3000 years ago. It worked 500 years ago when Europeans employed it everywhere they turned up (Era of European Colonialism) and it worked 200 years ago, 100 years ago, and it works today.* Divide-and-rule goes together with the rise of civilizations, like hand in glove. In collusion, or in association with modern civilizations. They work both within countries, and around countries. They work in corporations and in smalltime groups of any culture, language, religion, or any other idiology, and independent od¡f any other thought processes. There IS no "conspiracy" but for those who wish to achieve great gains at the expense of others. These "conspiracies" are not hidden, but wide out in the open, since the powers who implement all these tricks do so PROUDLY. They are trying to deceive you, the reader of this essay, into thinking such deceit and sleigh of hand trickery should be considered "normal." How to avoid DIVISION, is threaded into that old book of strategies: If one ignores the tribal aspects of the Ten Commandments, the key Commandments to keep the peace, in a generally peaceful environment, are these: The sixth command: "Thou shalt not kill," for the murderer slays the image of "God." Murder leads to endless copying and cycles of revenge. The seventh: "Thou shalt not commit adultery," for faithlessness towards another human being in general, is faithlessness to "the image of God" and leads to endless cycles of seeking revenge. The eighth: "Thou shalt not steal," for stealing results in endless cycles of violence, even murder, which leads to endless cycles of violence. The ninth: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor," for he who bears false witness against his neighbor commits a grave error. The tenth: "Covet not thy neighbor's wife, etc." Do not covet what is not yours. Notice how, since the dawn of modern civilizations, that there are so-called "leaders" who do the exact opposite, thereby "playing God". They do so, but wish to blame everybody else for their own weak nature, and their intention to lie and steal, but to get others to do the dirty work FOR their "class". See 1 to 24 of the conspiracy against mankind, and who implements it, and is above all PROUD of all the lying and deception. The New Testament on UNITY is the antithesis of the Old Testament on DIVISION. Sometimes the most simple explanations are also the correct ones.
    1
  370. Feb 17, 2024 — 'If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu,' says US Secretary of State Blinken... Remember the names of all their "lunches." Remember all their victims. As millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy. All around the world, millions of others like Aaron Bushell have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Eastern Europe and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map. Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers... Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible. It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"... Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country? Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting. Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this: - You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections. - You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media. - You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual. - You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way. - You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference. Here is what you can do, easily: 1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours) 2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed 3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
    1
  371. At the moment, most likely Armenia, being set up as the "NATO buck catcher" in the Caucasus...
    1
  372. Roman era strategies repeating. Morph the system. Enamor the local population. Set the outlying region up as barrier zone/lighting rod. One step at a time... Rinse, repeat.
    1
  373. Incredible. RSA version of the Robber Barons...
    1
  374. Small powerless states might fear repercussions by the hegemons. These repercussions are very subtle. Often in the form economic pressure or reprisals if any little state offers resistence to the fake "rules based order" (footnote). Footnote Note that the term "rules based order" is not an actual globally agreed upon policy. It doas not legally exist. It is simply a means to bring pressure on small nations, and as some analysts have quipped that the USA/collective West simply make up the "rules" which happen to suite them at the time, and then "order" the small states around (aka Neocolonialism).
    1
  375. §footnote 1: "In March 1786 Jefferson joined Adams in London on several items of official business and came away with all his prejudices against the “rich, proud, hectoring, swearing, squibbing, carnivorous” English nation confirmed.16 Carried to court by his friend, who had been cordially received a year before, Jefferson was snubbed and humiliated by George III. Nor did he find much friendliness anywhere. “That nation hates us,” he concluded, “their ministers hate us, and their king more than all other men.”17...In February 1788, Adams sailed for home (edit: from Europe). For Jefferson, as he wrote to Abigail (in private), it was the end of an epoch. It was the end of one epoch and the beginning of another in Europe too. The continent was turbulent from the Black Sea to the North. The Russians and the Turks were at war. In Holland, a bourgeois democratic revolution had been defeated and its leaders, who had been instructed in the American Revolution by John Adams, were cruelly suppressed or driven into exile by the Stadtholder, William V, Prince of Orange, in league with the old oligarchs and with the intervention of Britain and Prussia. Adams and Jefferson agonized for the Dutch Patriots, but felt that they had been betrayed by their own excesses as well as by their Bourbon ally. The fact that France, pledged to the Patriots, had not lifted a finger in their support offered a melancholy lesson for the United States. “In fact,” Jefferson wrote to his friend, “what a crowd of lessons do the present miseries of Holland teach us. Never to have an hereditary officer of any sort; never to let a citizen ally himself with kings; never to call in foreign nations to settle domestic differences; never to suppose that any nation will expose itself to war for us, etc.", Adams and Jefferson : a Revolutionary dialogue / Merrill D. Peterson, Digital Library of Georgia Online Plattform ----------- §footnote 2: A little-known detail in all of this is the reciprocal acts of favor during the Crimean War (1853 – 1856) during which the USA greatly favored Russia, and which was then returned shortly afterwards during the Civil War, during which Russia openly stood by the side of the Union, constant mutual visits of good will, the sale of Alaska (1867), and only taking a turn for the worse much later after around 1880. Even such obscure events as Russian ships seeking shelter in New York at the opening of the Civil War (1863), at a time a war between Russia and Great Britain was feared due to the Russian oppression of Polish subjects, undermines the generally favorable relations. At the time, the USA was in a period of great uncertainty, since its own expansion could have always triggered a European alliance of sorts against it. The premier US choice of European powers was therefore actually Russia, and as Washington DC began testing the own expansion into North and South America with a variety of doctrines, support of revolutionary movements, commercial enterpise, wars and great centrally steered state land purchases, and if these expansionist aims were to be gained without a Pyrrhic victory of great war with European powers, Washington DC needed friendly relations to at least some European powers. This begs the question why the USA would possibly choose Imperialist Russia as a possible candidate with access to Washington DC's power? A suggestion: if one looks at a map of Eurasia and considers the European balance of power at the time in the mid 19th century, while US expansion took place in great strides, and analyse the directions of the aims and goals of these European powers at the time. The Russian Empire's main rival was the British Empire, while it had friendly relations to its most powerful European neighbor, Germany. Russia and the USA therefore had shared rivals. During the Great Game the British and Russian empires were locked in a series of low-key limited wars on the fringes of both empires, interspersed by accords regarding specific contested spheres of interest, as both expanded into Asia in an imperialist struggle spanning around 75 years (roughly 1840 - 1907). At the same time, Russia was undertaking steps to withdrawn from the North American continent, and St. Petersburg expressed little inclination to make this a contested sphere of influence between it and the USA: the vital lack of friction between opposing systems. Noticing what is missing often goes under in the scholarly analysis of history, which tends to focus on what happened and can be evidenced. In this case a lot of friction between Washington DC and European powers like Great Britiain and France which already had spheres of influence in the area protected by the Monroe Doctrine, old empires like weakening Spain, or the new German Empire, trying to gain more than simply commercial footholds in South America. Until the 1880s. there were few points of discontent or rivalry between the USA and Russia. The second half of the 19th century, as the USA achieved its own internal period of consolidation with a great consolidation of power (The Gilded Age/1877 to 1896, and Era of Reconstruction/1865 to 1877), also brought about great leaps in overall power as the US industrial revolution first quickly caught up to European powers, and then overtook these in succession. Towards the end of that period of internal consolidation, a parallel development was better relations to key European powers of France as symbolized by the gift of the Statue of Liberty, followed by the Great Rapprochement with London (after 1895). Friendly relations to Russia were no longer necessary, nor useful since Russia had already withdrawn, had no further "Sword of Damocles" potential it could use as political tool against Washington DC, and Russian relations slowly took the back seat in Washington DC. After 1900 it dwindled rapidly, amongst news of atrocities (Jewish pogroms), and the generally enthusiastic views about the "David" Japan, standing up to the oppressive European "Goliath" Russia during the Russo-Japanese War (1904/05). The above reveals how Russia was dumped when it was no longer useful to achieve own aims and goals in North America.
    1
  376. Smedley-Butler already outlined how this works in "War is Racket", more than 100 years ago. The American people are powerless and can't stop their warmongering private and government institutions.
    1
  377.  @malcolmfletcher7295  Correct. Whatever the outcome in the Ukraine, and Israel/Gaza in our immediate future might be, the dividers in Washington DC have already achieved their aim. Eurasia is divided into multiple "teams", all arguing with each other and pointing fingers, playing the blame game, unable to unite into greater powers. Today: The sooner ALL these "divided" people realize this, the better it will be for ALL the people. War is a great divider. Such divisions last generations. "Divide and rule" extends into each and every mind. Line-drawing does not only take place on maps, but it also goes straight though entire societies. The "aim" is war and everything else which contributes to division.
    1
  378. The USA did the same to GB after WW2, which was the main factor which brought down the British Empire. See Micheal Hudson explaining this in a step-by-step manner in Superimperialism.
    1
  379. The British Empire invaded Tibet in 1902, and after WW2 it was expected that India would follow suite, and misuse the fact that there were border disputes between newly-independent India, and post-civil war China. China annexed Tibet for the same reason Israel fought the Water Wars (Jordan Valley) and annexed the Golan Heights: Water security. Since ALL of China's big rivers originate on the Tibetan Plateau. Therefore China will never allow another country to control Tibet, for the same reason Israel will never accept if another country controls the headwaters of the Jordan river.
    1
  380. IMO, "cancelling" people simply drives their agendas underground into secrecy. Let ideologues speak freely, and expose themselves for what they are.
    1
  381. Yes, "suppressed" = keep some either down or out of wealth and power. See Lord Ismay's famous quote about NATO being a tool of division in Eurasia.
    1
  382. ​ @myresponsesarelimited7895  Correct. You can rest assured that everything the "empires" and their instruments of power (like the MSM) claim others are doing, they are either doing themselves, or did in the past. Quincy Adams stated, as clear intention : "There are two ways to conquer a nation, one by the sword, the other by debt." That is what the USA did to European "friends" and foes alike.
    1
  383. The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail. The faster the rest of the world realizes this, the better. Washington DC power mongers employ the divide and rule technique of power. In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Europe was divided, with a ruling. This strategy is often misunderstood, in narratives composed mostly of "being friends" or "being rivals/enemies", even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. Washington DC used the same techniques (favouritism of specific "buck-catchers") that it had previously used to overpower European states and empires. After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, so by 1945 the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover... When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most? Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER. After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided" (the role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative. "Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...) London went from chief divider to chief of the divided in less than a quarter of a century.
    1
  384.  @jeremygardner5987  Yes, and these geopolitically "insane" have convinced most of the entire planet that they, the "enlightened West" have always been on the "right side of history," even though they have lain the foundation for every single major crisis and every single major war at key locations on the map, ever...
    1
  385.  @freebird7017  Avoid the single hegemony (alliance system) in Europe/Eurasia, has a looooong history. 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] America's allies and foes in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues. It is how divide and rule is implemented. Set up European and Eurasian nations against each other. The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Brzinzki (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
    1
  386. "If the USA gets a cold, the rest of the world gets the flu". GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS Honestly, what more is there to say? USA: "If I get a cold, the rest of the world suffers worse." This must be the most pathetic acknowledgement of subjection I've read my entire life. If your global neighbor gets an economic "cold" and you can't simply send them a get well soon card and continue with your own life unaffected, you are already in a globalist entanglement. Analysts should stop calling out hypocrisy/lies/double standards and start naming it what it is. It is a concerted effort of imperialism as practiced since ancient times, called divide and rule. If a side has a position of power, it does not stand to lose from all the false narratives, deception, and bloodshed it finances around the world. If you have a geographical advantage, you don't make "mistakes" or one isn't simply a "hypocrite" but one actually implements a strategy of power, which are old proven Roman strategies. These hypocrites face no disadvantages from being a hypocrite. These liars are far away from the foundations of the disasters they had sown. When the showdowns come, don't expect to see any of these "narrative shapers" on the front lines. These hypocrites will send YOU there when the shtf. This is divide and rule. One takes over a sphere of influence one slow step at a time. When there is a response, blame the side being encroached upon, and use any action by the other side as excuse for further encroachment or escalation. Others take the disadvantages, leaving the side in the position of power to sweep in and gain advantages. "Never argue with fools. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ― Mark Twain. Me: "Never argue with imperialist/globalist tools. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with inexperience."
    1
  387. Nobody is "in charge" of the MIC, and the same is true for MIMAC. The "command structure" is polyhedral, meaning multifaceted with different connections, on different tiers, and different nodes. It functions by implementing the multiple hurdle, multiple cutoff technique, meaning that power players who do not prove a similar ideological outlook are kept "out" of power. Another way to describe it is "cyclic dynamical system" in which what one player does in funding, supporting, or politically lobbying, aids all.
    1
  388.  @vgstb  Thank you for the inquiry. I sent you a few recommendations on the other thread. rgds
    1
  389. They are being deceived by their own ideology.
    1
  390. ​ @D64nz  Mastah and slave. Just like during the Era of Western Imperialism, which never really ended and simply morphed a little after the Cold War ended, to appease the own populations. For the Western imperialist mindset, it's still "we order and make the rules". The Western "rules based order". The Global South must decide, and they must decide soon.
    1
  391. They need a new "good war" with good/bad "sides" to get out of the slump the USA is in, with Lend-Lease and lotsa fweedumb and democwacy...😂 Where have I heard all of this before? 🤔
    1
  392. Yes. Western imperialism kickstarted everything our politicians whine about today during and after WW1, and western "interests" is what is fueling these conflicts today. This lay the foundation of every single event following in that wake. The natural imperialist way, by the "hawks" of politics, is to escalate conflict potential, hoping that the faraway powers (USA/EU) would gain from such localized crises and wars.
    1
  393. What makes anybody think the USA wants to "win" in the Ukraine? It is not about "winning" but about control. Control means the ability to syphon off enormous gains. According to the USA's long-term goals, there must be inequality in the world which favors the USA, and everybody else must bow down to the imperialust overlords of Washington DC. In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality." And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today. The peoples of Eurasia are still being turned against each other and then burned to ensure that this inequality remains. This is how “divide and conquer” is implemented. They pit European and Eurasian nations against each other and then rule over the division. The imperialist 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) regarding Eurasia.
    1
  394. ​ @Nantoo659  De facto, yes. Napoleon destroyed it in 1806. But Berlin was on the "winning side" in 1815, and it was "one war", so The Holy Roman Empire could have argued the "territorial integrity" line and insisted on the condition of status quo ante bellum.
    1
  395. According to De Gaule France was "the cape" of continental Europe, GB was "an island" (off continental Europe) and the USA was "another world" (not in Europe at all). These are NATO's "nuclear umbrella" blessed with geographical distance from the war zone. Fact: NATO's Article 5 is not "automatic war" in case a NATO partner gets involved in war with a non-NATO country. It also says that states have the right to further deliberate. In case any of the three nuclear powers decide that Article 5 was not "triggered" all the non-nuclear powers in Western Europe will become the proverbial "cannon fodder." See the Biblical tale of "Uriah the Hettite" explaining this strategy of deception. Get others into a struggle by chest-puffing around, and then when the "pushes" turn into "punches," make the own strategic withdraw and avoid getting sucked in until everybody else is "exhausted" from the bloodletting war.
    1
  396.  @garyddlewis3067  Why don't you rather add to the OP, or state what is wrong with it.
    1
  397.  @garyddlewis3067  That does not counter the OP.
    1
  398.  @garyddlewis3067  Neither Mearsheimer nor Sachs wrote the McCollum Memo in 1940, nor did they invent any strategies, like "goading the enemy into attacking first," which the memo elaborates on how to achieve.
    1
  399.  @garyddlewis3067  Errr...the OP by me is about the WW2-era. At the time China was not a "great power." It was weak, divided, and engulfed in a civil war, being exploited by outside western imperialist meddling, and was being attacked by Imperialist Japan. Are you confusing me with someone else? The OP is about WW2.
    1
  400. "The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015 Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA. That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia). Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, which is that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data. Here are the critical questions. If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division? How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"? Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power. In a nutshell: Implement and fund delusional propaganda games. Nothing of substance, with the implemented events often the exact opposite of the the loudly proclaimed "values". In the background, keep other systems either down or out of the own systems of gain and luxury life on all tiers, often by force, coercian, or at gunpoint, if it cannot be bought or corrupted, all accompanied by continuous flurry of words without meaning, spread by the exact systems which gain from keeping everything the way it is (a "divide and rule"-setup of the world). That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power). It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
    1
  401. WW1 was the biggest US "regime change operation" in history. Though not necessarily started with the intent of "regime change" as done with smaller less powerful states, the situation as it unfolded (1914-18) was exploited in order to impose "regime change". "If the Allies at the peace table at Versailles had allowed a Hohenzollern, a Wittelsbach and a Habsburg to return to their thrones, there would have been no Hitler." Winston Churchill, 26th April 1946 That short statement practically has "regime change" written all over it. That short statement also makes it clear what happens if one removes the gatekeepers (monarchy) of a political system from power, which then opens the door for all kinds of ideologues. They thought they could throw out the monarchs, and morph Germany into becoming "more like us" (old Roman technique of power), and there would be no consequences. Whatever they thought, one thing is clear: US think tanks who wrote the 14 Points Speech KNEW they were far enough away from Europe not to have to face any consequences should their own suggestions combined with the invariably following top-down implementations result in blowback (causality). So what had led Churchill to make such a statement? As part of the 14-Point Plan, Wilson demanded that Germany de-throne Wilhelm II, before any peace talks could begin. The Allies also refused a German delegation as part of the peace talks in 1919. WW1 was the USA's hitherto biggest "regime change operation" (Germany). Because here is what they tell you is history in thousands and thousands of books and docs: the "German people" or "German leaders" were the ones who "forced Wilhelm II into exile, or " forced the autocrats to abdicate because they were angry" or variations of that. Here is what they (usually) don't say (lie by omission): That it was the own side which had previously coerced other German leaders like Max von Baden into forcing the German government out of office, because that was a condition for armistice negotiations to take place. Here is the timeline of events: 1) Coerce German leaders to topple the current Berlin government. 2) German leaders realizing there was no alternative to stop the war, topple the current Berlin government. 3) Omit step 1) for the "narrative of WW1", or pretend it never happened, and then "write history" that pleases the own feelings by simply pinning the flag on the timeline, saying that the history of that event started on the day chosen by the writers of history. In order to find out what really happened, an interested history fan would have to delve into very specific books that cover the entire series of events, to find out the details. But, who does that? From the primary source: "The President would deem himself lacking in candor did he not point out in the frankest possible terms the reason why extraordinary safeguards must be demanded. Significant and important as the constitutional changes seem to be which are spoken of by the German Foreign Secretary in his note of the 20th of October, it does not appear that the principle of a government responsible to the German people has yet been fully worked out or that any guarantees either exist or are in contemplation that the alterations of principle and of practice now partially agreed upon will be permanent. Moreover, it does not appear that the heart of the present difficulty has been reached. It may be that future wars have been brought under the control of the German people, but the present war has not been; and it is with the present war that we are dealing. It is evident that the German people have no means of commanding the acquiescence of the military authorities of the empire in the popular will; that the power of the King of Prussia to control the policy of the empire is unimpaired; that the determining initiative still remains with those who have hitherto been the masters of Germany. Feeling that the whole peace of the world depends now on plain speaking and straightforward action, the President deems it his duty to say, without any attempt to soften what may seem harsh words, that the nations of the world do not and cannot trust the word of those who have hitherto been the masters of German policy, and to point out once more that in concluding peace and attempting to undo the infinite injuries and injustices of this war the Government of the United States cannot deal with any but veritable representatives of the German people who have been assured of a genuine constitutional standing as the real rulers of Germany." Source: International Notes: Diplomatic Notes, Prepared By Allan Westcott, Ph. D., Instructor, U. S. Naval Academy, November 1918 Proceedings Vol. 44/11/189 Washington DC power mongers employ old Roman techniques of power, including the "morphing" of systems which favor the own ideological expansionist goals, and one of these old Roman techniques is divide-and-rule. In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Not only Germany was divided, but also Europe was divided with a ruling. This strategy is often misunderstood, in popular narratives composed mostly of "being friends" even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, so by 1945 the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover...
    1
  402. Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century. The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021). This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?" The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule. Systemic/ideological expansion into: - Eastern Europe. - Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route) - Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route) Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired. "The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner"). It is today, as it was since 1776. Fact is that Trump, or any other previous admin, did not stop this "(systemic) slow march". Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemon. Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing. Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck... Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST? Foster division. Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove... These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quiet or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories." Then... 1) Divide-and-gain. If not. 2) Divide-and-control. If not. 3) Divide-and-rule. If not. 4) Divide-and-conquer. If not. 5) Divide-and-destroy. ...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing. Just claim hero status for the self, and blame everybody else for everything which goes wrong. The Albion. The Albion 2.0. The USA can gain somewhere else? Greenland. (Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template") Wait for it...
    1
  403. While the peace movements tries its best to attain peace for the Ukraine, the warmongers are setting up the "next Ukraine"... Georgia/Divide and Rule Here is what they tell you these days: Something along the lines of "Georgian leaders are all Moscow puppets," and the oppression of the poor people via a "foreign influence law," and how it is all about current leaders being Moscow stooges.... Here is what they won't tell you: That the foreign state/empire (Washington DC) which pays these protesters or their handlers, via such agencies as the CIA affiliated NED (of ex-Maidan fame) already have their own act to avoid foreign meddling in the USA. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act What they won't tell is that the foreign meddling in Georgia came first, and that the act by a sovereign state attempting to regulate this foreign meddling, came after that on the timeline. A typical act of imperialist hypocrisy and deception, as per strategy of divide and rule. The sole intention is to avoid continental European/Eurasian unity, and is implemented by Washington DC, as it has been for the past 200 years, using various deceptive divide and rule techniques. First by London, which was indirectly very convenient for Washington DC. Then after 1945, after the British Empire was driven into the ground using economic warfare means as explained by Michael Hudson (Super Imperialism/1972), the role of divider was directly taken over by Washington DC. The only attribute which decides whether one is the sole divider, or slips into the role of the divided, is POWER. GRAND STRATEGY/GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS Georgia, and millions of Georgians, are simply being set up as the "next Ukraine." Such a setting up of neighbors against neighbors has a long history and it is considered the absolute "acme of professionalism" by Washington DC to set up others to fight and die, so that US leaders in faraway Washington DC can haggle around in political games, arguing about how much the lives of these locals are worth, and all in efforts to score brownie points amongst their adoring fans. To "invest" in such death is considered the Washington DC norm, as has been openly admitted countless times, by countless Washington DC warmongers... The scale of such setups is not important, nor how it is justified: It is divide and rule. Such selective FAVORATISM is indicative of a divide and rule strategy, by an outside power. Whether it is currently Tiflis, or historically London which was being FAVORED by the power with the geographical advantage which was Washington DC, it remains a divide and rule strategy. It does not matter if anybody informs the people that it is a divide and rule strategy, or not, because the strategy is given away by the EVENTS. As one of the FAVORED locals might chest-thump around about how powerful ones friends are, but there will always be a price tag (game theory). See Ukraine today, the "past FAVORITE." See Super Imperialism to discover the price London paid for becoming a Washington DC favorite. The price tag for Britons was the British Empire, which was "dismantled" (Washington DC strategy paper talk) after 1945, and US access to previously protected markets enforced. Are you from Georgia? It does not matter if some or other commenter writes that actions were voluntary, it remains divide and rule. Just remember that the friends on the ground from the West you might interact with, are powerless. What they think is therefore unimportant. Their superiors overwhelmingly don't care, and will dump you (the favorite) the minute you are not useful anymore. This is regardless of how many "friends" you've made: your country/organization WILL be dumped, the minute your usefulness is no longer deemed valuable for these Washington DC overlords. It does not matter what ANY commenter writes or says, because the strategy of DIVIDE AND RULE is revealed by the actions of the actors. The only way to disprove the strategy of divide and rule, is if one can state that the events which point at an active divide and rule strategy, did not take place.
    1
  404.  @garyddlewis3067  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
    1
  405.  @SuperMukama  The question posed to Asians (mainly Chinese and Indians/citizens within these borders) remains the same as during the era of imperialism 200 or 300 years ago. The obfuscators and dividers will use the same techniques in reasoning as they use in politics: they will "hop around" on criteria, causing dissention in debates on the micro level (society), in the same way the power players "hop around" on entire countries/governments/capital cities/key politicians in geopolitics on the macro level... The technique of "divide and rule"... Hop over here, hop over there, whatever standpoint brings the own short-term advantage, because THE POWER has the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of not having to suffer consequences from it's own actions. The question posed to all Asians remains. Whether they can see that they are in the same positions they were in 200 and 300 years ago. The dividers come with "promises" which they mostly don't intend keeping, or offer "treaties" (in which these dividers themselves hold the geographical advantage of distance), make all kinds of excuses why the dividers don't keep their promises, or why the dividers don't suffer the same percentage of harmfull effects in times of crisis/war as the "chosen ones", just like 200 or 300 years ago. These promises are very enticing to power players, and offer the prospect of glory and achievement to the side the promises are made to, just like 200 or 300 years ago... Anthony Blinken making some Indians FEEL (§§§, see footnote) very proud with repeated offers of NATO membership, just like previous US admins made such promises to the Ukriane, which no doubt made many Ukrainians FEEL very proud, and then the dividers with the geographical advantage, subsequently citing all kinds of "difficulties" why such "pwomises" then cannot be effected in a short timespan. Meanwhile, exposing the "Ukraine"/proxy to extreme danger as the feet were dragged and dragged and dragged... Of course, in the game called divide and rule, it is not the fact THAT it is a ridiculous offer, in view of recent events in the Ukraine exposing the danger of such folly, but rather the fact THAT such an offer is repeated. The fact THAT the offer is on the table, already causes mistrust/dissention amongst ASIAN neighbors. Of course, if India refuses, the divider (of Asia), Washington DC can simply go to China and "promise Taiwan" to Beijing (signed away) in return for a deal, to surround Russia. The potential for "divide and rule" rests on the side with the geographical advantage, as long as the targets for division do not unite, specifically with a comprehensive Asian security agreement. The question to Asians remains the same. What are they going to do to create a SINGLE HEGEMONY (alliance) in East Asia, in order to speak with a united voice, against the POWER of division. BRICS is not enough. Any other deal or treaty, or the SCO in the current setup, or even the "UN's" laws and the "rules based order" cannot stand up to the POWER of divide and rule. It needs a comprehensive security agreement for all of those in the FRACTURE ZONE 4 (stretching from North Pole, via Japan, Taiwan, through Thailand, the Indian subcontinent, towards the Middle East). If no comprehensive security agreement is achieved, mutually beneficial for all, then simply wait for 200/300 year history to return ("rhyme")... Or are Indian leaders like... first they came for Russia, but I did not care because I was not Russian. Then they came for China, but I did not care because I was not Chinese, and even saw an advantage for myself (economy) if China got "carved up" and weakened... Indian leaders: It'll be great, if WE can CONTROL the WATER flowing into China, from Tibet...such tempting "offers" and promises... "Around 1900" repeating for Tibet. Finally though, if everything is burning, divided, in quagmire of revolution and war, and Asia the "new Middle East" as unfolded after the 1882 British invasion, followed up closely by the "Sir Lawrence"-types as the dividers of Arabs". The modern day version of that being the "Anthony Blinkens" of the world, finger pointing, and harsh language between neighboring states, and a tumbling towards "quagmire"-status, then who will speak up for India when the dividers come for you? DESIRABLE OUTCOME in any divide and rule system: The dividers will subsequently have the "upper hand/higher ground" (leverage) of POWER for all future negotiations with the resulting "statelets", just like the ME after World War 1. The secret towards more Indian "power" lies in the continued "power" of its neighbors, not these neighbors' weakness. §§§Footnote: The appeal to emotion Setting up the emotions generated by billions of minds, to set these minds up against each other, just like 200 or 300 years ago...
    1
  406.  @BaronGitanoCafe  Do not understimate the POWER of the "divide and rule"-strategy. In the west, you tell tell even the lowest IQ clown that he he still better off than 90% of the planet, and a fair percentage will happily kick down. Do not underestimate the lack of determinism by people who feel better than others.
    1
  407.  @susannestrange4299  China is the center of the new "Axis of Evil" (lol), aided by Russia the "new Hitler" (super lol), because it uses its power to try to create international unity amongst the weaker states (aka global south), to stand up to the division poured upon the world`s less well-off by the rich collective West. These "rich" preach with one hand, and sow division with the other, to siphon off excessive gains to themselves. 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] The Global North, which has siphoned off more than 50% of the world's wealth and resources for centuries, are of course the "Axis of the Goody Two Shoes" (lol again). And that 50% as "my cut" is what they did. It was simply the statement to keep up the systemic exploitation of weaker systems, to rule by division, wherever these weaker systems were, to uphold the power of the top tiers, hidden behind the nice-sounding stories of always just wanting to "help". Really? After 500 years of so-called "just helping out", there still isn't a just global balance of power? How long until the effects of "helping" come trickling down? China's Century of Shame: 2024 Version. If one understands what happened to China during their "Century of Humiliation," means that one then already has the template to understand what is happening today. One can use the historical "template" and apply it in the same manner. What happened to China during that era, is how "divide and rule" worked in the past, and still works today. Create or deepen a political problem, and then wait for the local little minions benefiting from the outside POWER of imperialism, who had been given gifts and promises, to come asking for "help." Use their "plight" (artificially enhanced) to meddle, or "leverage" (power dynamics) crises into "eternal problems," sit by and do nothing as problems foment into violence, revolutions, and wars, or carry out other forms of privatized interference (corporatism) under government protection, or without. Whatever works, details really REALLY DON'T MATTER. Once "fomented troubles" rise out of hand, claim to "just want peace." Then use the little minions as favourites (favouritism = a technique within the "divide and rule" strategy of power) to destabilize an entire region, steer them against other weaker entities, and/or employ them as instruments of power (the "tools" of power dynamics), or create overseas regions as a staging area far from the home base (the "unsinkable aircraft carriers"/like colonial-era Hong Kong), etc. In case of war, try to delay getting involved until an opportune moment, them sweep in a gain advantages, often obscure ones in strategy not immediately clear to the unconnected base of the pyramids... See the footnote, for an independent analysis of the strategy, from another era, and different set of "interacting powers." Whatever works for the desired region to be divided/conquered or where CONTROL and domination is required for the favoured economic systems of gain will be implemented. There is no way that current day Chinese leaders will not have learnt their very own historical lesson, and allow their very own history to repeat/rhyme, and allow such outside meddling in the own systems to gain traction, AGAIN for a second time. Every nation or state has its own "Never again!" European citizens today are still suffering from the hegemonic ambitions of some of their leaders, teaming up with Washington DC/the Pentagon. These citizens, usually around 50% of entire populations, suffer directly (the "heating or eating"-crowd last winter), or indirectly (soaring inflation), and therefore simply not having enough money to save to cover a sudden emergency. These are all "effects," not to be confused with "causes" (see concept of retro causality, one of the most easily misused ways to skew a timeline of events). Some eventually even end up in the muddy trenches. If you live in the West, and don't know any of this history, or don't care what 1.4 BILLION Chinese think, or intend not to "get involved": it doesn't matter what YOU think. See the essay in this comments section, about 7-8 years ago, as the "encirclement of China, as history rhyming" as the strategies are repeated. It was originally written about 10 years ago, as a short comment based on the observed reality at the time. Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or Mackinder before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans/Eurasians by using entire groups/nations/countries as proxies, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their (temporary) GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER. With re. to how tools are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..." Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves. No, this is not just some or other random anecdotal evidence, but an age-old strategy of power. Note also, that a "plan" and the strategy to effect the plan, are two different things. Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as the USA implemented "dissent by other means" (Clausewitz), to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combated by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today. MORE than sufficient evidence for this, in the below comments section. Outsiders intent on playing the game, use the revolutionary spirit, in order to hop onto useful dissent, strengthen it, and insert levers which they can pry open to gain own advantages. Beijing is certainly 100% aware of this, so everything you are witnessing today is a political EFFECT, not a political "cause" as some leaders wish to mislead us towards. Everything you are being told about Berlin, in stages after 1894, 1904, 1907, and 1912, with gathering momentum, were EFFECTS, not CAUSES. That was, based on observation, outside powers with the intention to "divide and rule" Europe, by encroaching/encircling the major continental power, which has never changed throughout recent modern history. It started with the encirclement of Germany (by Russia/France) and continued with the encirclement of Austria-Hungary, nodded off politically/strategically by London in 1904, and 1907. The strategists in Washington DC would have been surely extremely pleased by these unfolding events (see the comment below this one). The ONLY factor which changed over the last few centuries, was the "major continental power" which had to be CONTROLLED by the outside power who wanted a competitive advantage. It continued after WW2, and the main thing that saved the planet from WW3, was the fact that nukes (MAD) meant that those used to push and push until something snapped, had to be more cautious this time. The historical parallel, as the "Chinese Century of Shame"-historicity, and is well-known at least to the 1.4 billion inhabitants of China today. The template therefore predicts a similar outcome, that of the more encroachment/encirclement, the more likeliness of the "breakout attempt" in some possible future. Obvious solution for a more stable world, stop the encroachment/encirclement, and stop the use of people caught within lines drawn on the map, as instruments of power. Both historically (post-1900) as well as our recent history (post-2000) there seems little incentive for those with the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to do so, but rather the repeated attempts to search for tools to do such encroachment/encirclement FOR the outside power/s intent on gain. (Footnote: For more information on this technique of top-down power aka divide-and-rule/conquer, go to the Sowell vid on YT about how Rome conquered Britain. History rhymes, because the strategists repeat the strategies of power, which are limited in number. That might have been a looooong time ago, but the strategies are still being applied proactively today, meaning that YOU (the reader), your family and friends, are being set up again. Voltaire — "History never repeats itself. Man always does.") Personal advice: Try to "get it." Ignore the dissenters.
    1
  408. The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail. The faster the rest of the world realizes this, the better. Washington DC power mongers employ the divide and rule technique of power. In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Europe was divided, with a ruling. This strategy is often misunderstood, in narratives composed mostly of "being friends" or "being rivals/enemies", even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was pushover... When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most? From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003 "What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." (end of) There is no doubt that Washington DC is attempting to repeat this "success" (pov) in the rising powers of Asia. The strategy can be observed to be implemented in the same way as was set up post-1900 in Europe, but in Europe the "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer theory) were Great Britain and France. Today, it is India being used in the same role as France was 100 years ago. In case of a wider war in Asia, as India is set up against China, qui bono if all lose? The technique Washington DC employed up to the year 2000, is an almost exact repeat of the technique they used to overpower Europe around the year 1900: DIVIDE AND RULE.
    1
  409. Five-minute attention span societies of the USA/collective West.
    1
  410. Yes, stay out of the world's troubles, created by systems of greed seeking to create and gain from the flames they fan all over the world, hiding behind their stories of "good intentions." "When two neighbouring countries fight each other, just know the USA visited one." - Nelson Mandela (Region: Southern Africa/Big picture timestamp: Cold War). The statement is not quite correct. When two neighbours fight each other, just know that an empire has been there previously. It's the old joke that "If two fish are fighting, the British Empire has been there." It is a truism about imperialism in general, and how divide-and-rule works. Set up neighbours against each other, using a variety of ever-consistent techniques and strategies. With absolute certainty, the tribal leaders of Europe joked the same way about the Roman Empire 2000 years ago, as these outsiders/Romans plus proxies, openly flaunted their "Pax Romana" whilst in the background covertly favouring one "local neighbour", whilst setting them up against the others, using whatever reasoning it wanted. Outsiders will come to a state (also covertly politically or via NGOs as the strategy of "cultural- and political capture"), and these outsiders try to lay down the foundation for division by setting up the "new-found friend" against its neighbours and if it is unsuccessful in one "state" (status quo), it will simply go to the neighbours and try the same. The more neighbours, the more chances of a successful division of powers, which is beneficial to the "divider". The more "neighbors", the merrier the games. Because if these neighbours all end up squabbling and fighting, the "divider" vacuums off gains (of various kinds) in the background. Such implemented and leveraged divisions do not necessarily stem from evil intent, since most of the participants in a divide-and-rule strategy have absolutely no idea that they have become "actors" in a great game, the scope of which they remain ignorant of. Even those with good intentions (political doves) can create division.
    1
  411. Excellent comment. Most human beings living in symbiosis of systems either don't have the skill to recognize bad actors, nor the inclination to remove them since it is tangentially beneficial to own favored systems, or have become directly entrapped by the "gain models" (pyramids) lead by such bad actors. An example of this would be the case of Oliver North, whose psychopathic dealings were rewarded by "the system" with a highly paid management position (NRA). It doesn't seem to bother sufficient decent people enough to make such "management styles" impossible (effect a "stopper" against such models de jure or de facto). Indeed, based on observation, and looking back in history it can therefore be concluded that such behaviour is only given a "slap on the wrist", and therefore continues in "good empires". Studies have shown that models based on "intent of gain", like capitalism, have rates of people with psychopathic tendencies as high as 20%. Compare that reality to the average for a normal society, or usual non-gain models of cooperation, which is around a "1% psycho saturation rate". There is no reason to believe other models of "intent of gain" (like politics) do not have similar high rates of psychos. All empires as collectives of individuals have by nature, psychopathic and bullying tendencies. Note that the "Hollywood image" of the "psycho" and "the bully" is far removed from reality. The unfortunate reality is that most psychopaths/bullies remain undetected, and undetectable, because they manipulate entire groups of "non-psychos/non-bullies" into following them as beneficiaries, who then start entire campaigns of coverups and deception themselves. These psychopathic traits are generally considered to be common traits, and are defined: stated where these individual traits overlap with governments: - have split personalities (the political reality of "doves" and "hawks" coexisting in one "brain") - they are narcissistic (constantly pointing the finger "outwards" in attempts at deflecting from own actions and goals) - they have "brains" (governments) which control, or misconstruct data - scheme for own gain (policies, doctrines, and the likes of that) - use manipulative strategies as tools in order to mislead billions of people These bad actors and deceivers are allowed "to play", to lie and deceive, telling their inhabitants things like "all we want is peace", whereas in reality there are elements pushing for eternal war which benefits the systems they represent. Footnotes/key words for further research: * 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths * Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy * The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
    1
  412. They would be in favor of a continental strategy created for the peoples of Eurasia... Cool. Count me in.
    1
  413.  @monumentaltravel3745  Who pays you?
    1
  414.  @monumentaltravel3745  Why do you then project, and accuse others of "being paid"?
    1
  415.  @mariov1347  "Do nothing" is what lead to the wars, which then lead to the refugees. You conveniently started your "timeline" with an EFFECT, and you ignored the cause. Don't like refugees? Stop the eternal wars.
    1
  416. Forty years ago a few strategists thought it would be a great idea to "oppose communism" by favoring and funding religious fanatics. Remember Rambo, and the friends Hollywood propagated? When the USSR withdrew from Afghanistan, the USA/collective West "celebrated" a chest-thumping "victory". Twenty years ago, offshoots of the old friends, flew into the own buildings... History rhyming in Syria?
    1
  417. It's how divide and rule works...
    1
  418.  @jason8434  Please also read the top 3 essays, under this video, which I posted before. Thanks and regards...
    1
  419. Trump is an imperialist. Vote for an imperialist, get more imperialism. Biden is an imperialist. Your entire system is geared for imperialism, that spits out imperialists you then get to vote for... Who you cheer and vote for is totally irrelevant.
    1
  420.  @73elephants  Yes. divide-and-rule can be employed in "light" and "dark" ways. If the intention is to manipulate, deceive, create systemic gains, or set "tribes" up against each other, then this is on the dark side of this force.
    1
  421. @ Canada should be safe. The strategy is called "muddying the waters" (creating a fuss to distract the plebs) so one can gain somewhere else when everybody is distracted. It's the control over Panama and Greenland they are after. You should be OK. ..but I offer no guarantees. 🙂
    1
  422. @voightkampff7399  The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) 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 outsiders 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". "The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015 Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite. Endless wars, constant dissent. Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players. Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down. Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Who wields the POWER? Who has had 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-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history. Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV." Different Empires. Different eras. Same games. The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy". The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys". 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." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet. And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences. America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism. The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over. The reason I always recommend these books first is because it points to how divide-and-rule is implemented, even though it is never mentioned. Anybody who knows how divide-and-rule is implemented, can read any book and then recognize the tell-tale details revealing the strategy. This is divide-and-rule, a long-term strategy of power which is revealed by the events, not the words used by analysts who are all biased to an extent. The overall strategy is divide-and-rule, and one can implement it with a few key advantages, mainly: 1) the distance from the evolving events 2) the POWER (economic, political, military, financial) to afford advantages to own instruments of power 3) the time to wait, without compunction, granted by the luxury of 1) "distance," to await how events one has contributed to, unfold. We in search of unity, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC... PIC: Political Industrial Complex FIC: Financial Industrial Complex NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex MIC: Military Industrial Complex CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature. The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector). Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting. The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
    1
  423. @ YT deleted my longer reply to you.
    1
  424. The POWER of the "divide and rule/conquer"-technique is ageless and spans many empires globally, and throughout the ages, because it is predicated on human nature itself. Israel. The "favorite" of men who play god. From a position of POWER, pick a favorite in the Levant, and play "divide and rule" in the Middle East/Eurasia... The "favorite" of men who play god. Favoratism is always indicative of a "divide and rule"-strategy. An observed "divide and rule"-strategy is always indicative of imperialism. There is a fracture zone starting at the North Pole, stretching southwards through Finland, the Baltic States, Poland, the Ukraine, through the Caucasus, Iran, all the way down to the Middle East. Here it links up with another fracture zone all along the north coast of North Africa. From the Middle East, another fracture zone runs eastwards, via India, through SE Asia, north through the Philippenes, the divided Koreas, Taiwan, Japan back up to the North Pole. Expect the dividers to show up here, in search of "buck catchers". As strategy of power as old as the mountains. The "divide and rule"-strategy or technique has a pretty long history in the Levant, which had been a desirable crossroads of civilizations ever since ancient times (land route connecting continents/systems) with changing POWERS implementing the strategy as time passed. If one wishes to understand history, one first has to familiarize oneself with strategies of power. If not, one WILL get misguided, distracted, and fooled into cheering for "imperialism", even whilst thinking one is cheering for "freedom and democracy", or something else... Note that in order to play the game of "divide and rule", it needs a geographical/physical advantage, and POWER. No POWER, no games... In a more worldly sense. As far as systems and strategies are concerned. The few million people initially injected as "anchor state" (strategy) into the Levant, by an empire after WW1, are not going to rule/dominate the Levant. Such a small number is always a "tail", and not the "dog". The tail (lesser power) does NOT wag the dog (greater power). That is just an easily chanted slogan, created by the dividers, in search of scapegoats for the slogan chanters/banner wavers. It is a myth and a tool of deception and misdirection, by those who truly wish to rule by division. The ruling class. The elites, or the "1%-ters", the "$uperhubs", or whatever one wishes to call such a headless mass, united by their interests. In the real world, it is the "dogs" of POWER, who "wag the tails". Modern Israel is a tool, once created by an Empire for a specific purpose, just like every other ME country was created for a purpose. The sooner ALL these divided semites in the Levant realize this, the better it will be for ALL semites.. They are ALL tools.
    1
  425. The time is approaching. A pivot of history. For 50 years after 1945 the citizens of the USA have lived the "good life" at the expense of the rest of the world in the immediate post-WW2 years, when the rest of the planet was so weak it could not avoid US institutions/military/NGOs from imposing themselves, and vacuuming off enormous gain from a position of unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL invincibility... Now, that ratio is down to 30% of the world's wealth. It's decreasing... What does the USA look like today? What will it look like when this amount of wealth of the world reaches 20%, or then 10%? When US citizens finally get closer to a "fair share" of the world's resources/wealth, and have to make do with the same amounts as everybody else, they will finally find out what level of psychopathy they have systemically enabled inside, operating from within their OWN country/state. When they can no longer vacuum off the wealth of the world, in an unfair manner (50% for us, the 6% of the planet), they will start finding out what human nature is like. When the current 4% of the planet, have to make do with 4-5% of the world's wealth and resources as other nations come and take a fairer share of these resources for themselves, the USA will become EVERYthing they have always criticized, and finally discover they are just like everybody else. 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] Ruth Bader-Ginsburg: "To Those Accustomed to Privilege Equality feels like Oppression". In the coming years, Americans are going to start feel soooooo "oppressed" and feel the urge to fight back against "all those jelis peepil" (🤣😂) the 95% of the planet, who somehow had to manage with the other 50% of the wealth/resources for the fifty or sixty years after 1945... America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this desirable disparity continues. Set up "patterns" of European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. CONTROL the access to its own POWER. Keep others either "down" or "out" per "rulings". No, that isn't a "conspiracy theory". It is "divide and rule", in different contexts, on different tiers, and in different eras of history. It is how divide and rule is implemented. CONTROL the resources, which are the limiting factor (NOT "money" which is simply a "means" to divide) Find volunteers and local ambitious rulers who collaborate, who "dance for money", and the sky is the limit for the dividers... 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) as the template. The strategy to avoid unity in Eurasia, or to avoid "avoid war" (note: double negative), has been the same for the past 200 years.
    1
  426. If you live in the "global South", do not relax yet, or celebrate any assumed victories of creating more unity. The USA/collective West have one more ace up their sleeve. Capturing the hearts and minds of the (mainly) young, rebellious, and easily-influenced, is a long-term goal of what W.T. Stead set out to do as the "Americanization of the World" (book) on all tiers: ideology, food, industrial products, movies, language, etc. Of course, what he didn't mention back then almost a hundred years ago when this global strategy started, was that this was in effect an old Roman-era strategy of power: to morph the conquered, to become "like Rome." Fill the bellies of the global masses ("Bread") and distract them with entertainment ("Circuses"), and then turn them into the tools of the empire. Beware of the divide-and-rule strategy. It historically gave Europeans, and after 1900 the USA/collective West, the basis of the power in the past, and they still employ it systemically today, on multiple tiers, and the BASIS of their POWER was the ability to keep all the other states/countries/races in the world "down" in power, by setting them up against each other, to a point of warring each other. The advantage in power afforded to a system by a geographical distance from rival powers, in combination with parallel factors like an advanced political system with entrenched institutions, wide-ranging trade- and financial system, high population density, a skilled and highly educated work force, favorable climate, abundant raw materials or safe access to these, high level of industrialization, a technological edge, modern infrastructure, strong military, and a well-organized society on all levels, with a stabilizing wide-ranging unity within the own borders. Divide-and-rule was the advantage they thought they held 100 and 200 years ago, and they think it still is today. There can be only 1 "winner". The others are the systemic "cannon fodder" for the gain of the few "buck passers". Democratic systems of course offer the eternal opportunity for eternal "passing the buck": nobody ever did anything wrong (sic./apologia), nobody ever decided anything bad (sic./apologia), everybody can always simply point the finger (reality in the "superior West"), everywhere else. The perfect systems for all kinds of cowards, slimeballs, profiteers, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and finger-pointers... Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power (in stages after 1890), in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) and their "buck-catchers", nodded off by the "buck passers" which hold the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER. Humdeedum some time passes. By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1... That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around. The global elites will draft YOUR daughter, before they send their own sons to the warzones they have created for their own systemic gains. The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging ...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbours, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed right through to today. Whatever... Guess who "wins"? The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names. During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand). The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction (MIRVs carrying nukes) as it was around the year 1945. It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore.
    1
  427. Yes, all of that but also the "war dividend"-attitude of the global extreme rich, whose wealth is global and who are not negatively affected by the effects of their own actions, and who have realized that "crises/war/control" pays actual dividends in real terms...Dollars and Pounds. "Peace" on the other hand, doesn't pay nearly as much. It might feel better, but it doesn't pay.
    1
  428. Of course she is ...ahem ..."popular." She is a great divider of Europeans. "Divide and rule, the politician cries; Unite and lead, is watchword of the wise." ― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe The minute some or other leaders in Europe step forward to unite people over regionally, and start speaking of concepts like the "common European home," the dividers will immediately work on their own counter strategies (see the Clinton admin in the 1990s). One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is. Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use ze technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Regardless of the "system of gain" in question, which come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves... The favorite = the proxy. Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish. All that is needed is a position of superior power. Divide and rule/conquer creates "favorite sons" (Ukraine) on the one side, and "scapegoats" on the other as "default rivals/enemies" (Russia). Divide and rule creates dangerous precedents, and lays potentially self-destructive foundations, and Africa and Asia should learn from European mistakes, and never say "never." "The rich ruling class has used tribalism, a primitive caveman instinct, to their advantage since the beginning of time. They use it to divide and conquer us. They drive wedges between us peasants and make us fight each other, so we won’t rise up against our rulers and fight them. You can observe the same old trick everywhere in America today... That doesn’t just happen all by itself. There are always voices instigating these fights." ― Oliver Markus Malloy
    1
  429. History did not start in 1948. Why did you choose this date?
    1
  430. 46:30 minutes He means "IFF" not IDF 😅 A minor detail, which does not distract from his excellent analytical skills. Very good interview, thumbs up 👍
    1
  431. The vast majority of these unelected corporatist/globalist agendas have nothing to do with what Europeans overwhelmingly want: leaders who will finally set out to create peaceful Eurasian unity, by peaceful means, and squeeze US influence out of these regions.
    1
  432.  @PerceivedREALITY999  Yes, avoid the creation of a single power on your borders, which was Arab unity as proclaimed as desirable by Arab leaders a long time ago, and why those Arabs who joined GB during WW1 were "promised" a united Arab unity. They were betrayed by promises, because the outsiders intented to fragment (Balfour/Sykes-Picot) the Arabian Pininsula, and it still is being fragmented by outsiders (USA, EU) or neighbors (Israel, Iran, Turkey). It's divide-and-rule. The political root cause of all human suffering, because it comes before all else. The intention to rule by division, regardless of the costs. Arabs made it easy for the dividers, since their tribal and religious factions made them easy prey.
    1
  433. Hawaii to New Zealand, Argentina (Mapuche) to Canada (First Nations)... Europe (Bretonese) to Australia, where the "Beds are Burning" - and the list goes on and on...
    1
  434. The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a "fact"? Because it actually happened. If an actual fair treaty had ended WW1 in 1919, there would not have been a "WW2" and none of that which followed in the wake of an unfair end, would have ever happened. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever... Today? History is repeating. Albion 2.0 Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends". After a short halt, the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s. Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule. - Eastern Europe. - Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance). - Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance). This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an "IMbalance of powers" as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico. The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story". The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul rescinded). For the "divider," the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere. "How" and "that" are different premises... The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. The conflagration that took place after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were: 1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars. set up against: 2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900. The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally: Divide-and-gain (power for own systems). If not. Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground). If not. Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.). If not. Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever). If not. Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division). This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War, with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy o divide-nd-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they "feel" better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the "logic" of causality where there is a trench waiting for you...
    1
  435. Strategic ambiguity. Keep the plebs guesing "why", or "what for?". Divide-and-rule.
    1
  436.  @RobertaSirgutz  I thank you for your comprehensive OP. Your reference to these distracted masses is also an old Roman-era technique to "keep the plebs busy" (Bread and Circuses). In between helicopter parenting and filling out tons of paperwork, all kinds of entertainment distractions keep the overwhelming majority too distracted to know or care what their leaders do in their names behind closed doors. Cheap food ("Bread") keeps those bellies happy. Cheers. 👍👋
    1
  437. ​ @HelenaK-x7o  The "bad apples" are an actual strategy of power. The "good apples" in positions of power, have no interest in getting rid of "bad apples". There are too few truly "good apples" in power. The bad apples serve the interests of the so-called "good apples" who mask their intentions behind kind words...
    1
  438. From the intro: Yes, ancient philosophers have already concluded that to defeat an emotion, it needs a stronger emotion. No amount of logic and reason has ever defeated a strong emotion. Entire groups can be steered this way, by toying with mass-manipulation. To overcome the discomfort of thoughts about Corona, it needed a war to distract with stronger emotions: hate, fear.
    1
  439. I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc... Sorry to burst your bubble. I've got some bad news for all you "never gonna fight"-fanboys. YOU. WILL. GO. Capturing the hearts and minds of the (mainly) young, rebellious, and easily-influenced, is a long-term goal of what W.T. Stead set out to do as the "Americanization of the World" (book) on all tiers: ideology, food, industrial products, movies, language, etc. Of course, what he didn't mention back then almost a hundred years ago when this global strategy started, was that this was in effect an old Roman-era strategy of power: to morph the conquered, to become "like Rome." Fill the bellies of the global masses ("Bread") and distract them with entertainment ("Circuses"), and then turn them into the tools of the empire. Beware of the divide-and-rule strategy. It gave whites ("Europeans") the basis of the power in the past, and they still employ it systemically today, on multiple tiers, and the BASIS of their POWER was the ability to keep all the other states/countries/races in the world "down" in power, by setting them up against each other, to a point of warring each other. The advantage in power afforded to a system by a geographical distance from rival powers, in combination with parallel factors like an advanced political system with entrenched institutions, wide-ranging trade- and financial system, high population density, a skilled and highly educated work force, favorable climate, abundant raw materials or safe access to these, high level of industrialization, a technological edge, modern infrastructure, strong military, and a well-organized society on all levels, with a stabilizing wide-ranging unity within the own borders. Divide-and-rule was the advantage they thought they held 100 and 200 years ago, and they think it still is today. There can be only 1 "winner". The others are the systemic "cannon fodder" for the gain of the few "buck passers". Democratic systems of course offer the eternal opportunity for eternal "passing the buck": nobody ever did anything, nobody ever decided anything, everybody can always simply point the finger, everywhere else. The perfect systems for all kinds of cowards, slimeballs, profiteers, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and finger-pointers... Teach your children well... Of course these hundreds of comments by Americans and Canadians mirror the comments made by hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become" or my personal favourite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the leadup to their declaration of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war"). Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power (in stages after 1890), in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) and their "buck-catchers", nodded off by the "buck passers" which hold the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER. Humdeedum some time passes. By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1... That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around. The global elites will draft YOUR daughter, before they send their own sons to the warzones they have created for their own systemic gains. The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging ...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbours, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed right through to today. Whatever... Guess who "wins"? The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names. During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand). The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction (MIRVs carrying nukes) as it was around the year 1945. It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore.
    1
  440. Today, Washington DC/USA intends to keep its role as "alpha" of the world (just like London/GB did "around 1900"), gained from European empires after WW2. There is even an "insider joke" about NATO, which is that it intends to "keep Germany down, and Russia out". Effect: Washington DC/USA stays the master of European affairs. NATO is now just another tool in the toolbox of "divide and conquer", going back all the way to the 18th century, when the USA was first established. European powers failed to morph NATO into a more suitable system following the end of the Cold War "around the year 2000". A system including Russia and all post-Warsaw Pact nations equally, in a comprehensive security agreement. Note always: What did not happen. Of course a comprehensive security agreement without ...ahem...."parallel treaties", and a "morphed NATO" into a strong arm of international law = power to actually follow up with punch if "the law" is broken. A new system under which laws, codified by the international community, actually formed a basis of cooperation, not "muh interests you know..." US leaders realized that the key to their own superiority lay in dividing Europeans any which way they could (note, "Europe" is a geographical term, and includes Russia). Sowing dissent. The "freedom and democracy"-argument, backed up by coffers filled to the brim with "slush fund" money... Sow dissent. Irrelevant of whether the actors come with good intentions, or are even aware of what they are ultimately doing: Divide and Rule/Conquer, for a different system. There is a long history... "In Holland, a bourgeois democratic revolution had been defeated and its leaders, who had been instructed in the American Revolution by John Adams, were cruelly suppressed or driven into exile by the Stadtholder, William V, Prince of Orange, in league with the old oligarchs and with the intervention of Britain and Prussia. Adams and Jefferson agonized for the Dutch Patriots, but felt that they had been betrayed by their own excesses as well as by their Bourbon ally. The fact that France, pledged to the Patriots, had not lifted a finger in their support offered a melancholy lesson for the United States..." (from ugapress manifoldapp) Who doth even recognize the "freedom and democracy"-argument here? Irrelevant of intentions, it fits the definition of "sowing dissent" in an existing "system". Irrelevant of whether the reader has any personal preferences: the actions fit words, and words have definitions, which are a strategy. Divide others, to avoid unity. Of course, at this early stage the USA had no way to implement "rule" in any form. A divided Europe suited Washington DC just fine, because should Europe ever unite, it could pose an existential threat to the new USA... The more division in Europe, the better.
    1
  441. "Blackrock Merz" made it...yeah... In reality it does not matter who "won" but what will matter is what they will implement via political clout. In this respect, I hope for Germany/Europe that the previous "war rhetoric" voiced during the lead-up to the elections, was merely just that: empty words.
    1
  442. ...and which also resulted in 1 million dead, and 34 millions refugees from all over the ME, which then ended up to a great extent in Western Europe, where their presence aided in started the escalating domestic political landscapes into a far-right shift... Causality is a bummer sometimes.
    1
  443. Every good innitiative to achieve peace will be torpedoed by the forces in favor of systemic "US/collective Western" expansion. We have been deceived into thinking "territorial expansion = bad", but accepting systemic expansion as "normalized". Both urges of expansion however, lead to eternal cycles of lies leading to wars, and wars leading to lies...
    1
  444. Washington DC played a large role in the destruction of multipolarity following the year 1900. Now, they will do the utmost to resist a new multipolar world. Following the year 1900, Europe lost its top tier position as global leaders because their leaders could not find a suitable balance of power between the states, which was equally acceptable for all. Note that with Versailles and many other bad choices, they ALL lost. WW1 and WW2 was one struggle which roots go back a 1,000 years: the battle for continental supremacy between France and The Holy Roman Empire, with Russia off to one side of that, and GB off to the other. This is how the quote "peace for 20 years" (Foch) should be interpreted. WW1 and WW2 was simply another "30 years war" with the difference being that Atlanticists (the naval powers) stepped in and supported France as the "favored nation" as a proactive divide-and-rule strategy of intended global control and domination. In the end they ALL lost and became subjected to the American Century, whose post-WW2 Truman Doctrine was simply more divide-and-rule, to drive a rift between Europeans. After WW2 this "rift" was simply "ruled" to be further east, and the desirable status quo of "Europeans set up against each other per outside ruling" was moved a few hundred miles eastwards. Read Mackinder (1904), which found its logical continuation with the Truman Doctrine, and Churchill's Iron Curtain.
    1
  445. The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail. The faster the rest of the world realizes this, the better. Washington DC power mongers employ the divide and rule technique of power. In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Europe was divided, with a ruling. This strategy is often misunderstood, in narratives composed mostly of "being friends" or "being rivals/enemies", even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. Washington DC used the same techniques (favouritism of specific "buck-catchers") that it had previously used to overpower European states and empires. The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself. ------------------------------------- "The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015 ------------------------------------- Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA. That includes this current war being incrementally escalated by the West, in the Ukraine. This war was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia). Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power. In a nutshell: Implement and fund delusional propaganda games. Nothing of substance, with the implemented events often the exact opposite of the loudly proclaimed "values". In the background, keep other systems either down or out of the own systems of gain and luxury life, on ALL tiers, often by force, coercion, or at gunpoint, if it cannot be bought or corrupted, all accompanied by continuous flurry of words without meaning, spread by the exact systems which gain from keeping everything the way it is (a "divide and rule"-setup of the world). That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power). It is to create confusion, which can be exploited. The intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia (which incl. the ME), in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite. Weak leaders lead to hard times in the form of endless crises and wars. Deceitful leaders lead to constant dissent, which mainly benefit those powers which can stay out of mass conflagrations like war, or step in last to gain from the mutual exhaustion of all the others. Outside powers can insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
    1
  446. Yes, whatever happened, the USA "wins". Because what they are after is European/Eurasian disunity and division. Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, proxies, 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? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. You don't have to study thousands of books and watch endless debates on the topic "How US foreign policy works." Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it. Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism. The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism. The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and using friends, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism... It means to AVOID the unity of all others. 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 individual 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
  447. The results of that production, is coming to a village/town/city near you... Many of the the refugees coming to Europe, came because the USA/collective West destroyed their homelands with endless imperialistic wars, sanctions, and other means of economic oppression. It is not 1800, or 1850, or even 1950 anymore. They will come (refugees, mass migration), as long as our elites destroy their prospects of living a decent and prosperous life in other places in the world.
    1
  448. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: "Divide and rule, the politician cries; unite and lead, is watchword of the wise." Divide and rule, the USA/collective West cries; unite and lead, is watchword of the resistance. Beware of the dividers. They will come with their promises and allures. When these dividers come with lies, death, and misery, they are always the "good" liars, thieves, and killers in the own "(his)stories" they tell themselves. When the resistance finally re-acts, and lies, steals, and kills as a result of the previous actions of the outside dividers, then this is (quote) "evil."
    1
  449. The "biggest loser" of the systemic conflagrations that were "WW1" and "WW2" was the great divider/grand encircler London/British Empire. Around the year 1900 its lords set out to encircle (by proxy) its biggest contester: Germany. HOW TO LOSE YOUR EMPIRE: 2024 VERSION Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all history books. Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Note the definition of ancillary: it does NOT mean "false" or "wrong." It simply states these theories, which could be correct in themselves, are not as important as other theories of a higher tier. Ever since the establishment of their Empire, London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." (From a primary source) In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. This had nothing to do with "Germany". Before that, it was France. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's fatal mistake was snuggling up to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the British Empire. This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address issues as they rose. The two powers started nodding off each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or taken under duress or outside pressure, or otherwise, are fallacies. From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I." If you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). EPISODE I: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races (edit: the term "races" was not used the same way it is today) becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one." SOURCE: "ROYAL PAINS, WILHELM II, EDWARD VII AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910." There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what story we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). EPISODES II thru IV: Lotsa other stuff happening. EPISODE V: If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centered imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens: "What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003 Also known as the "peaceful transfer of power" like as if London had a choice. Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover... No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire. If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power. When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most? Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER. After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided". The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative. "Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl... London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century. After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A Big Three to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games. All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died. They preached Darwinism, and succumbed to it. The urge to deflect blame for the own actions (encirclement strategy) which backfired leading to the end of the British Empire. is human nature. The reality is that lower tiers don't "win" anything (gain) in wars. The higher systemic tiers "win" at the expense of the masses. The end result is then always the same. 99% lose, and the tops of the pyramids of power (industrial, financial, political tiers) "win" bigtime...
    1
  450. America, avoided avoiding war, even though they could have avoided war.
    1
  451. Jesus said "do not judge", especially things you don't understand...
    1
  452. The world is subjected to the US "logic" of election cycle eternal wars...
    1
  453.  @vgstb  If somebody asks me I usually recommend Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding the geopolitics of Eurasia, then W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. With regards to how imperialism/militarism implements the aforementioned, one can read the classic War is a Racket, by Smedley-Butler. Stand alone suggestions regarding strategies of power are other classics like Machiavelli/The Prince, Sun Tzu/Art of War, or Clausewitz/On War. One can add Robert Green/48 Rules of Power to the mix, and from there it isn't far to figure out how the powers implement divide-and-rule on multiple tiers: from domestic politics, and societies, all the way through to international relations. In case you prefer podcasts you can also search for these in YT since there are several channels which either read, or elaborate these books. Regarding divide-and-rule: It inverts a lot of the logic of what is generally considered "popular/narrative history" (as seen on TV) and with regards to what we are being told are the reasons for crises and wars.
    1
  454. My advice to the leaders of the BRICS nations would be to always doubt the "offers of entente/rapprochement/alignment/alliance" originating from the Atlanticists' sides.. The issue is that these "offers" do not solely stem from the desire for peace, but are driven by the desire of Washington DC elites to CONTROL the rest of the planet (Atlanticism). Therefore, guard well what has been achieved so far with the SCO/BRICS. Even if these US "think tanks" who make such offers have benevolent intentions, they are not in control of Washington DC/Pentagon, London City. The intention of these outsiders is to get into a "system" (strategy: "center of the chessboard") and then break it up from the inside. Show interest to "join" (sic.) but then get on the inside. Then...break it up (see Brexit) once an own aim has been achieved (for GB it was the growth of the economy, after joining the EU, after the economic ruin in the UK of the 1970s). After the own recovery was achieved, the "system" then turns against those who aided them in achieving that goal. The USA already did this in WW1, to contribute greatly in the "break up of Europe", with the stipulations for the Armistice (1918), the 14 Points/Versailles, thereby taking over the role London played before that (pre WW1/WW2). How does an outside system of power apply divide-and-rule to already divided [groups]? The outsider leverages the dissent with favoratism. The outsider picks a side. The outsider picks a "chosen one", making up some or other excuse. The outsider attempts to gain an advantage if others are in crisis, have differences, engulfed in wars, or can't agree on how to split a cake... The outsider provides support in the form of money to the chosen one or propaganda creating "good sides/bad sides" arguments everywhere, in which the chosen one is the default "good side"
    1
  455. Excellent analysis. The big picture of grand strategy makes Kursk an ancillary detail though. In the late 20th century and early-21st century, the EU morphed from the example it intended to set for the world, into just another "empire" in search of systemic expansion, [see footnote] subjected to the whims of the "buck passer" USA, which was "pointing fingers" at another state/power and claiming this state (Russia) is in search of territorial expansion... It did so, right in front of the eyes of half a billion EU subjects, very few noticing this "shift.". This is history rhyming. Today, the EU is led by a bunch of weak and pathetic "leaders", and these leaders are deceiving millions of its own inhabitants. Oldest trick in the book. Simply "exchange" a concept in geopolitics (territorial expansion = bad, bad, but the own systemic expansion = "the right side of history, always") and millions of people are then deceived by their own brain functions, because they are enamored by their own ideology and systems, and suddenly cannot think straight, and are deceived by the "right/wrong"-dichotomy... Footnote: NATO = a state within a state, and a state of affairs on the "chessboard" (grand strategy).
    1
  456. No it isn't. Socialism and communism evolved out of the 18th century European peace movement as bottom-up counter to top-down imperialism. NATO is a "buck catcher". The nations in NATO are used as tools of imperialist systemic expansion.
    1
  457.  @Athena-Mele  Thank you for reading and considering 👍
    1
  458.  @tommackling  I can see you've done some in-depth research. Yes, nothing is as it seems: our "empires" are empires of lies and deceit on all tiers. The majority of good people can do nothing to stop these sociopaths and narcissists who rule the world by division. You probably heard about the following, but I'll add them any way in case you wish to check it out for further research: 1) 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths 2) Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy 3) The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism 4) Dr Namie's research revealing the "Four Bully Types" This explains the dark side of our ruling elites well. What are our "globalists" today after WW2 who control our politicians like puppets, were the "internationalists" (before 1945) and the quote in the OP is from one such an internationalist (McKennan), one of those characters who pull the strings behind the scenes. How the divide and rule setup employs tools (democracy/capitalism). The "divide and rule" strategy gives millions of people the illusion that they are struggling for an own cause, whilst actually depleting their own energy fighting for the causes of other, higher powers... Just like "democracy" gives voters the illusion of choice, only to set them up in a collective "divide and rule"-setup, in which influence/TRUE power is funneled overwhelmingly in one direction: upwards. Just like capitalism, gives advocates the illusion of chance, only to set them up in a collective "divide and rule"-setup, in which wealth is eternally funneled overwhelmingly in one direction: upwards. Reality: Empires use and abuse human beings as on all tiers as... - walls and barriers - as proxies for the own gain - as tools (instruments of power) - as potential "staging areas" for future own use - as "extensions" of the own power (or increased "reach" for the imperialist power) On that gloomy note 🙂 Cheers
    1
  459.  @tommackling  Kind regards back. For some inexplicable reason the more extensive answer I gave you got swiped by YT. I'll try again later.
    1
  460.  @tommackling  The Mudsill Theory: The GEOPOSITIONAL ANALYSIS This theory as observation of events over a long period of time, as the "cheap pool of labor" in order to keep the cost of production down (a bully tactic). What is "fair" does not concern the power players and those who wish to CONTROL the flow of the resources, the planet's ONLY determining factor, which cannot be miraculously increased, with a snap of the finger. It is not money which is the "root of all evil", as they would wish you to believe. That is the "cover story". It is the resources which are limited, and it is these resources which POWERS wish to CONTROL. Money, esp. fiat currency, can be printed. The resources remain constant, and can only be increased incrementally, in small amounts over a long period of time (mining, industry, allocation of resources). Therefore the only function of "feds" (FSB) is to ensure that not so much money is printed, so as to undermine the entire reason for its own existence. If too much is printed, it will inflate away the CONTROL they wield over the entire system. The Mudsill Theory: A GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS Those who wish to CONTROL the resources are not the politicians. The controllers are in ingroup, and act in unison, and as George Carlin has explained, "they KNOW what is good for themselves," meaning that it goes without meetings to know what is good for their own system. As long as the systemic actors act as collaborative effort, such efforts are rewarded. If those seeking gain however, should ever, EVER, try to scam their own kind from the own tiers of power (see Bernie Madoff), there WILL be consequences and such actors will be outcast. On the international tiers, all empires need smaller entities to do the work. Especially "dirty work" so the empire may keep its "hands clean" (strategy of power). The rotten apples are not coincidental, or merely unavoidable, because that's how ALL the top tiers eventually gain.
    1
  461.  @tommackling  I'll give it a final try, if not we'll have to give up. Can you see the above essay? If you can, see if you can make sense of it, and analyze data the same way I do. Cheers 🙂
    1
  462.  @tommackling  Yes, the Mudsill Theory. I'm happy you can see it. Excellent knowledge on your part. All of that, what you wrote, comes in a pyramidal shape with the smallest but wealthiest groups at the top of the pyramid, and the rest in tiers down to the wide base, with ever less power and wealth. The shape is kept intact by the divide and rule technique, since the top tiers can use it downwards. The top tiers can rule the lower tiers by dividing them, and disunity means friction which can be exploited, but it doesn't work the other way around: the base has no way to divide the tip of the pyramid. That is how they concentrate 50% of all wealth in the top 1% of the pyramid.
    1
  463. The age-old logic here is to keep a balance of powers on all tiers, between all systems. That will mean the incentive to overpower other systems will deminish due the the fear of the "bloody nose" if pushing the own agendas too far. Enjoy the holidays 👍🙏
    1
  464. It's the power of "divide and rule," and the tools it creates for the controlling power, the USA. Washington DC makes "promises" (South China Sea) and lures Vietnamese leaders into the trap of voluntarily becoming the "buck catcher" (John Mearsheimer) to encircle and encroach on China. Note that Vietnam and China don't exactly "like" each other. An easily exploitable situation for a "buck passer" like the USA. Other countries are also engaged as "buck catchers" already, like the Philippenes. What status these states proclaim for themselves is irrelevant.
    1
  465.  @macrosense  Washington Naval Treaty. 5-5-3-2-2 The USA was one of the two "fives" of naval power after 1922. It was already in global third position before 1914, and used the war to increase its naval power while other powers were preoccupied. The US Navy is the only branch of the armed forces mentioned in the US Constitution as constitutionally funded per Constitution. The other branches are not. The Founding Fathers knew what would happen if a central government (Washington DC) got the power to dictate global policy to the single states. It would become the "dictatress of the world" (Adams farewell address warning, and quote).
    1
  466.  @jeannettemueller2163  Employing mass-guilt is a strategy of power. The "guilt laden" can be coerced/browbeaten into paying eternally. Notice a correlation (which is human nature) in some who employ this trick (but not all), in that they often never feel remorse themselves, for the violence they commit to fulfill their own goals.
    1
  467. The USA has lived beyond its means for more than 50 years. Now it's all coming to a head. After 1945 the US government and 1%-ters set out to gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves if not direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony. Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources. That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only International Relations. Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet. This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule). Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore. The USA came out "on top" after 1945 because of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, not because of better leaders, a better government, or anything else. A geographical advantage meant the ability to employ division as tool, more successfully than other systems: which is the employment of the divide an rule technique. No, the US government was not "good," unlike its people, but rather used geographical advantages to be more slimy than everybody else. Sorry, if reality triggers anybody. Sorry, but at least 50-90% of Americans are NOT privileged enough to benefit from the "50%" of resources the empire vacuums up, claiming it as its justified "right" to CONTROL. Whatever. You'll soon find out. Then, from the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other systems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that all other systems are bad/evil, want to rule the world or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthroat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and the true reality of human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources. footnote In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality." And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
    1
  468. Whatever the outcome in the Ukraine, and Israel/Gaza in our immediate future might be, the dividers in Washington DC have already achieved their aim. Eurasia is divided into multiple "teams", all arguing with each other and pointing fingers, playing the blame game, unable to unite into greater powers. Today: The sooner ALL these "divided" people realize this, the better it will be for ALL the people. War is a great divider. Such divisions last generations. "Divide and rule" extends into each and every mind. Line-drawing does not only take place on maps, but it also goes straight though entire societies. The "aim" is war and everything else which contributes to division.
    1
  469. ​ @marie-laure.  Excellent point. 👍 I assume the OP also does not understand how "cause/effect" works. The occupation started in 1967, and Hamas was founded in 1987, as a result of the occupation.
    1
  470. In respect to what happened in the 1920s. Which "side" flooded the other side (indigenous population) with mass-immigration? Which "side" coluded with the forces of imperialism to get what they wanted?
    1
  471.  @woke2woke153  It doesn't really matter what story one tells, there is always one before that, to which the "story told" was a REaction. We know today that the 6-Day War was a "war of choice" by Israeli leaders. Why do we know that? Because it is what the archives revealed, and even they do not deny anymore that they wanted this war. The initial kickstart, regardless of any "story" will always be "WW1" as a watershed of history when one hegemony (Ottoman Empire) left, and the next hegemonies took over (GB/France). Who were NOT asked about their future? The people who actually lived there. They therefore REacted to the steps implemented, about which they had not been consulted about. Simply imposing onto others, that is imperialism. One either supports imperialism, or denounces it: there is no middle way.
    1
  472.  @woke2woke153  Me? I'm not against mass-immgration. But it isn't about me. Making it about "me/you" is always a fallacy in reasoning. We" didn't live back then.
    1
  473.  @woke2woke153  OK, thank you. Then we can certainly agree on a lot. From what I've analysed from reading hundreds of books, articles, theses, and watching many a debate, is that true geopolitical issues will never be resolved by us, let's call "us" the "commoners." If it were up to the principle of the commons, and along such guidelines, there never would have been a problem to start off with. I'm 100% certain that the original inhabitants would have had no issues with immigration as such, but that it was the "agenda" behind that caused the uprisings. The fear of becoming overpowered in the lands they were born. The British Empire was inempt at solving the issues at this point, when it was still possible (1920's). It is IMO not the common small people who cause problems, but when politicians step in and impose top-down, agenda driven rulings, that is when problems quickly run out of hand.
    1
  474. In the UN, all the great powers of the world, had veto powers. The "deciders" sat in the separate "Security Council". In the past power meant, and still means, that any other decisions by lower-tiered little states could simply be ignored without any consequences. The colonial structures of TRUE POWER persisted. Divide-and-rule. Whoever vetoes, "rules" by exclusion, aka enabling minority rule over majorities... Not saying it is completely useless, since it serves a vital function of documentation and "heart" of the world, but the UN was of course, not a "power" but a debating club, and a US tool, which Washington DC only agreed upon after WW2, because they could control it (unlike the League of Nations after WW1, which US politicians feared they might not be able to control for their own benefit, in view of the POWER of the colonial European empires, so the USA didn't join it after WW1).
    1
  475. Unfortunately for the local inhabitants the USA/collective West doesn't care. See the Middle East. If these psycopaths in charge in the Pentagon, NATO capital cities, or Washington DC, cannot control a region, they would much rather see it destroyed completely so the "other side" cannot benefit either (aka "scorched Earth").
    1
  476. Biden is simoly a figurehead. The Grand Strategy is not created by US Presidents, but are long-term plans created by think tanks and "strategic study centers"...
    1
  477.  @silenciothequiet3471  Thank you, maybe I should 🙂 The problem with knowledge though, is that it can always be "read" in two ways: those who will seek to rectify wrongs, and those who will go "oh, wait a minute...I can actually gain by sowing dissent/division..." The issue is always that the wrong people will read such books for the wrong reasons. Cheers
    1
  478. What makes anybody think the USA wants to "win" in the Ukraine? It is not about "winning" but about control. Control means the ability to syphon off enormous gains. According to the USA's long-term goals, there must be inequality in the world which favors the USA, and everybody else must bow down to the imperialust overlords of Washington DC. In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality." And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today. The peoples of Eurasia are still being turned against each other and then burned to ensure that this inequality remains. This is how “divide and conquer” is implemented. They pit European and Eurasian nations against each other and then rule over the division. The imperialist 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) regarding Eurasia.
    1
  479. ​​​ @thelastaustralian7583  Capturing the hearts and minds of the (mainly) young, rebelious, and easily-influenced, is a long-term goal of what W.T. Stead set out to do as the "Americanization of the World" (book) on all tiers: ideology, food, industrial products, movies, language, etc... Of course, what he didn't mention back then almost a hundred years ago when this global strategy started, was that this was in effect an old Roman-era strategy of power: to morph the conquered, to become "like Rome." Fill the bellies of the global masses ("Bread") and distract them with entertainment ("Circusses"). Cheers from Spain 👍✌️
    1
  480. The sunk cost fallacy moment is nearing fast. The collective hive mind in the capital cities in the USA/collective West must decide soon whether to "write the Ukraine off" or "invest more". Do not expect a wise answer from those who do not intend to suffer from any effects their own decisions will result in. According to the strategies of the wise, it states "if all else fails, retreat" (see the 36 stratagems of power). The framers/manipulators in power have already "tried everything else" and failed, but do not expect them to "retreat" and lose their "investments." They will "Pivot to Asia" (Iran, South China Sea, or thereabouts) and sacrifice your daughter (current debates) before they send their own sons off to the wars they have lain the foundations for. That was not different around 1900, than it was around the year 2000. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FREEDOM vs. CONSCRIPTION I just came here from a video with thousands of angry comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, Germans, Poles, etc. stating "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go", or anger at incompetent politicians. They mirror those made by thousands of comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand how power works. It does not matter what they think. It was what millions of young men already said a century ago in the leadup to their governments' declarations of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me". There can only be a few "winners". The rest are the systemic cannon fodder for the gain of those who pass the buck. The "buck passer" is of course the weakest of all minds. Democratic systems of course offer the perfect environments for the opportune for eternal "passing the buck": none of these leaders ever did anything wrong (sic.), nobody ever decided anything bad (sic.), and everybody can always simply point the finger, everywhere else. The perfect systems for all kinds of cowards, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and lower-tiered finger-pointers... Here is what they did in both cases (around 1900, and again around the year 2000). Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power in times of peace, by the aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) by men who knew that neither they, nor their own offspring or friends, would ever have to face the consequences of an own unjustifiable standpoint. That means doing to another state/country/alliance what they would never consider acceptable, if done onto them: encircle them, encroach on them, restrict a fair access to the globe's resources. How do we know this is true? Because it actually happened, and can be observed. "I no longer listen to what people say, I just watch what they do. Behavior never lies." - Winston Churchill Yes, Winnie. What can be observed, and plotted on the map, is not a "lie". Humdeedum some time passes. By golly, no more personal "freedom", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the muddy trench to enforce Step 1. Guess who "wins"? The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup over the world. Those who hold the GEOGRAPHICALLY opportune advantage of the "higher ground" or the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names. If history has taught us one thing, it is that for those who stand nothing to lose personally (or for family/friends) that if all else fails, they take the plebs to war.
    1
  481. Cause and effect. This all started in Israel, by an Apartheid government unwilling to give up its political agenda, ongoing for more or less 75 years (occupation of the West Bank/siege of Gaza). Based on a mentality, carried by large parts of the population, going back to the 1890s (Zionism), which is that Eretz Israel belongs to "them" (ingroup). Israel is the "anchor state" of Western Imperialism in the ME.
    1
  482. The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) 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 outsiders 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". "The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015 Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite. Endless wars, constant dissent. Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players. Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down. Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Who wields the POWER? Who has had 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-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history. Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV." Different Empires. Different eras. Same games. The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy". The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys". 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." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet. And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences. America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism. The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over. The reason I always recommend these books first is because it points to how divide-and-rule is implemented, even though it is never mentioned. Anybody who knows how divide-and-rule is implemented, can read any book and then recognize the tell-tale details revealing the strategy. This is divide-and-rule, a long-term strategy of power which is revealed by the events, not the words used by analysts who are all biased to an extent. The overall strategy is divide-and-rule, and one can implement it with a few key advantages, mainly: 1) the distance from the evolving events 2) the POWER (economic, political, military, financial) to afford advantages to own instruments of power 3) the time to wait, without compunction, granted by the luxury of 1) "distance," to await how events one has contributed to, unfold. We in search of unity, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC... PIC: Political Industrial Complex FIC: Financial Industrial Complex NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex MIC: Military Industrial Complex CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature. The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector). Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting. The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
    1
  483. My advice to the leaders of the BRICS nations would be to always doubt the "offers of entente/rapprochement/allignment/alliance" originating from the Atlanticists' sides. The issue is that these "offers" do not solely stem from the desire for peace, but are driven by the desire of Washington DC elites to CONTROL the rest of the planet (Atlanticism). Therefore, guard well what has been achieved so far with the SCO/BRICS. It has a historical precedent in Europe. Even if these US "think tanks" who make such offers have benevolent intentions, they are not in control of Washington DC/Pentagon, London City. The intention of tgese outsiders is to get into a "system" (strategy: "center of the chessboard") and then break it up from the inside. The USA already did this in WW1, to contribute greatly in the "break up of Europe", with the stipulations for the Armistice (1918), the 14 Points/Versailles, thereby taking over the role London played before that (pre WW1/WW2). There exists a similar construct as BRICS/SCO was for East Asia, in Western European history. It was the Treaty of Björko (1905), which in conjunction with the Triple Alliance (1879/1882) formed the foundation for a comprehensive continental European security agreement, which certain London actors, in conjunction with Paris then proceeded to torpedo with the Entente Cordial (divide and rule/conquer). The strategy by London/Washington DC of breaking up an agreement of neighbors by/for mutually beneficial cooperation rhymes throughout history.
    1
  484.  @ritarossi1805  Age old "balance of power"-logic. London lords were fine with it. Why do you think London didn't declare a preventive war in 1938, or 1936? Of course not, because "balancing out the rise of the SU" (under Stalin) was THEIR objective.
    1
  485. The world is powerless and divided against Washington DC's ongoing "divide and rule"-strategy in the ME, which has been ongoing ever since the USA took over as hegemony from the British Empire....
    1
  486. The biggest danger to the world are ideologically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world. Search the term ideology in a dictionary. It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER. It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues. These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago. Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy. One of these axioms, must be wrong.
    1
  487. The "dollah hegemony". US politicians are the middlemen and debt collectors...
    1
  488. States don't have "rights." Individuals have "rights" according to international laws and agreements. Guess which states have been in breach of such international laws, or agreements with regards to the rules of war, or common decency ever since 1919, in the ME?
    1
  489. Here is what they say: That there will be peace in the world, and that everybody can live in Western-style prosperity, as long as everybody becomes like us in the West. Here is what they tell you: That these US/collective Western governments and privatized imperialist instruments of power "support the people" in "standing up to neighbors" or "resisting their governments." Here is what they don't tell you. That these regions (which can be plotted on a map as "march route of empires") are not going to be the last such promises are made to. The intention is to gain these regions as jumping off points for further own "Smedley-Butler"-style corporate expansion. Once one region has been converted, it is time for the "next in line" a few years later. They never explain, however, HOW the entire world is going to live a "western lifestyle" if the resources are the constant factor. They will come with their deceptive "logic" and "reasoning" and their innocent "questions" but they never answer such blatant and obvious contradictions themselves. For some inexplicable reason, these slime-balls and liars who deceive these naive people in faraway places, don't tell these people that there are not enough resources for the entire world to live "western lifestyles" and even IF they convert, there is NO intention to have these far-flung regions to EVER have a "western lifestyle," because even today it is a well-known fact that it needs the resources of 4 or 5 planets in order for every inhabitant of the planet to live like a Westerner. In other words, in order to fulfill their promises, every American and Westerner (around 12% of the entire global population) will then also have to share equally, and make do with 12% of the world's resources: NEVER. GOING. TO. HAPPEN. How do we know this? Because it has not happened so far. That means it will also never happen in the future, and they are lying in order to deceive people. The intention is to let these people bleed and die for the own corporate expansion, and then have the "Blackrocks" move in to gut the available gems of the local economies, and enslave the people into eternal Western led debt-slave taxpayer status for the benefit of these outside corporations and their local collaborators, accompanied by the "eternal finger pointers" and their finger-pointy "logic". And they need YOU to voluntarily propagate/advocate for such a slimy deceitful plan. TANNU TUVA: A GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS No doubt, few people have heard about Tannu Tuva... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvan_People%27s_Republic ...a small republic in Siberia, with a relative poor population, and with border disputes with Mongolia, a fair amout of valuable resources, and therefor ripe for a little NED "Maidan"-style secret ops to topple the local government. The next Ukraine, in a looooooong list of "next Ukraines". Belarus (White Russians), Georgia, Armenia, and many more, which are well-documented cases of regime change: the playbook is always the same and this playbook is as transparent as glass. The fact that some of such regime change operations have failed, is irrelevant: they NEVER stop. They will keep on coming, until they reach they goals: bloodshed and death, for the own expansion. Morph the system, and employ the people as tools to do the own bidding. Move on, to the next in line. There is ALWAYS a "next in line." Most favorably, to employ local populations to fight and die while "extending Russia" (actual language used in strategy papers). Then destabilize Russia from within, one step at a time. Carve it up into smaller pieces, and use these smaller pieces to encroach on, and encircle the REAL goal: China. Rinse. Repeat. The "game" started by London (British Empire) continues, eternally, since there are not enough resources to fulfill the promises made. These people in these faraway places are doomed to remain in poverty, exploited by a few local favorite elites, who will be the FAVORITES of the far-flung "empires". FAVORITISM = A divide a rule technique of power (imperialism), all well-hidden behind flowery declarations, hooded language, long words, and (sometimes well-meant I assume) promises. See the long list of such morphed systems: "democratic" but still poor, because the far-flung empires CONTROL the access to resources (gatekeeping = a bully tactic to keep others "down") all over the world. These people remain in poverty, until the excesses of their foreign steered elites reach such proportions that the people revolt, or choose populist/military leaders, and then that is the excuse used to topple the government, or try to coerce neighboring states to carry out a regime change invasion. Imperialism 101, gathering their cheering dumbed-down slogan-chanting fanboys and gamerboys, too dumb to realize what they are signing up for.
    1
  490. Classical divide-and-rule trick.
    1
  491. It's how divide and rule is implemented. The dividers don't care about "winning" in the contemporary sense of the word. They care about CONTROL, and GAIN.
    1
  492. You can say that about any book. Even the Bible...
    1
  493.  @view1st  Correct. Tribalism in Europe also meant "no cohesion" in Europe, so that Europeans were totally unprepared against outside threats when they ended up "exhausted" and "extended" after the final 30 years war (1914 to 1945). Washington DC power players "played" the leftovers of this conflagration "like a fiddle" (divide-and-rule).
    1
  494.  @view1st  Correct. Hypocrisy and lying (deceit/manipulation) are a dead giveaway of a covert divide-and-rule strategy. One must look at the events only, to circumvent the "forked tongues" of deception.
    1
  495. The sunk cost fallacy moment is nearing fast. The collective hive mind in the capital cities in the USA/collective West must decide soon whether to "write the Ukraine off" or "invest more". Do not expect a wise answer from those who do not intend to suffer from any effects their own decisions will result in. According to the strategies of the wise, it states "if all else fails, retreat" (see the 36 stratagems of power). The framers/manipulators in power have already "tried everything else" and failed, but do not expect them to "retreat" and lose their "investments." They will "Pivot to Asia" (Iran, South China Sea, or thereabouts) and sacrifice your daughter (current debates) before they send their own sons off to the wars they have lain the foundations for. That was not different around 1900, than it was around the year 2000. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FREEDOM vs. CONSCRIPTION I just came here from a video with thousands of angry comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, Germans, Poles, etc. stating "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go", or anger at incompetent politicians. They mirror those made by thousands of comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand how power works. It does not matter what they think. It was what millions of young men already said a century ago in the leadup to their governments' declarations of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me". There can only be a few "winners". The rest are the systemic cannon fodder for the gain of those who pass the buck. The "buck passer" is of course the weakest of all minds. Democratic systems of course offer the perfect environments for the opportune for eternal "passing the buck": none of these leaders ever did anything wrong (sic.), nobody ever decided anything bad (sic.), and everybody can always simply point the finger, everywhere else. The perfect systems for all kinds of cowards, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and lower-tiered finger-pointers... Here is what they did in both cases (around 1900, and again around the year 2000). Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power in times of peace, by the aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) by men who knew that neither they, nor their own offspring or friends, would ever have to face the consequences of an own unjustifiable standpoint. That means doing to another state/country/alliance what they would never consider acceptable, if done onto them: encircle them, encroach on them, restrict a fair access to the globe's resources. How do we know this is true? Because it actually happened, and can be observed. "I no longer listen to what people say, I just watch what they do. Behavior never lies." - Winston Churchill Yes, Winnie. What can be observed, and plotted on the map, is not a "lie". Humdeedum some time passes. By golly, no more personal "freedom", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the muddy trench to enforce Step 1. Guess who "wins"? The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup over the world. Those who hold the GEOGRAPHICALLY opportune advantage of the "higher ground" or the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
    1
  496. "Gulf of Tonkin 2.0" coming up folks. Soon we'll have a "Gulf of Persia Incident," and our MSM repeating the "they attacked us, boohoo," headlines... Remember the Alamo? Remember the Maine? Remember WMDs? Remember, remember...
    1
  497.  @Stacie45  Same here. The "thought police" have been getting worse and worse by the day 👍🙏👋
    1
  498. It must have been hard for Zelenski to stand next to McConnell, as the senator openly drooled about the "trillions" to be gained for the Blackrock class in the Ukraine. Black rock for the billionaires. Black sand for the Bill Gates' "agricultural expansion"-class... Everybody happy. Well...almost. Guess who ends up with "nothing"?
    1
  499. Other regions of the world have been set up as tools for more than 50 years, to become "next Ukraines". Philippenes. Taiwan (not a "country") Thailand. Baltic States. Scandinavia. Japan/South Korea. India. Saudi Arabia. Mena region (Israel).
    1
  500.  @uneasyrider1980  Yes, it is the dogmatism of a few and (partly) also indoctrination in some. People who think they are better than others are easily deceived into thinking everything their leaders do, and have ever done, is "the best thing" or "the correct thing." However, it is often the follow on effects of these past political and military actions, which then lead to more problems, not less. That is then called "(his)story". Everybody telling the "story" in such a way as to come out in the most positive light, by denying reality ["lying by omitting" what distorts the ''nice story''].
    1
  501. Who GAINS if there is DISUNITY everywhere else in the world? The deceivers, obfuscators, outright liars (by omitting), and all those who wish to GAIN from the DIVISION of others, will twist themselves into a knot in order to AVOID answering. It is their entire nature. AVOID unity everywhere, AVOID answering questions, AVOID addressing the effects of their own politics, AVOID addressing the effects of their own actions, AVOID, AVOID... and then remain quiet with regards to the roles they played in fostering DIVISIONS all over the globe, even within their own peoples... This can only be achieved from a unique position of unique POWER: geography. Most of our history is too narrow, and can only serve as data to figure out the big picture. After around 1900, Europe lost its top tier position as global leaders because their leaders could not find a suitable balance of power between the states, which was equally acceptable for all. Note that with Versailles and many other bad choices, ALL Europeans lost. WW1 and WW2 was one struggle which roots go back a 1,000 years: the battle for continental supremacy or "Who is the top dog in Western Europe?", and a balance of power between France and The Holy Roman Empire, with Russia off to one side of that, and Great Britain off to the other. This is how the quote "peace for 20 years" (Foch) should be interpreted. WW1 and WW2 was simply another "30 years war" with the difference being that the naval powers (GB and the USA) stepped in and supported France as the "favored nation" as a proactive divide-and-rule strategy of intended global control and domination (see footnote). Side with the weaker power, to AVOID unity and a single great power rising in Europe. Foster division. Step 1: Deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others. Then... Divide-and-gain. If not. Divide-and-control. If not. Divide-and-rule. If not. Divide-and-conquer. If not. Divide-and-destroy. In the end ALL Europeans lost and became subjected to the American Century, whose post-WW2 Truman Doctrine was simply more divide-and-rule, to drive a rift between Europeans. After the Cold War this "rift" was simply "ruled" to be further east, and the desirable status quo of "Europeans set up against each other per outside ruling" was moved a few hundred miles eastwards. The new "Iron Curtain" will soon be declared, under some or other fancy term, to divide the eternal "good guys" and the new "bad guys"... Read Mackinder (1904), which found its logical continuation with the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine, and Churchill's Iron Curtain. ------------- Footnote: My sincere thanks to a fellow youtuber (@realvipul) who thought my one of essays explaining the divide-and-rule/conquer strategy of power was "TLDR" or too complicated and therefore ran it through AI... "The comment discusses the concept of "divide and rule" as a strategy employed by powerful entities to maintain control. It argues that human systems are inherently chaotic due to the complexity of human nature, making them susceptible to manipulation through division. The example of the Roman Empire's conquest of Britain around the year "0" is used to illustrate how this strategy works, emphasizing that the motivations of individual collaborators are less important than the overall effect of division in enabling the empire's dominance. The comment then extends this analysis to the American Century, suggesting that the same strategy was used to exert influence over Europe. It highlights that the goal is to create maximum division among opposing groups while maintaining unity within the ruling power. The comment criticizes the media and political leaders for perpetuating a cycle of lies and wars, often under the guise of opposing territorial expansion while simultaneously promoting systemic expansion. In essence, the comment argues that the "divide and rule" strategy is a fundamental tactic employed by powerful entities to maintain control, and that understanding this strategy is crucial for comprehending historical events and current geopolitical dynamics." It's divide-and-rule/conquer. Europeans once grew into North America using this technique, morphed into "USA" and then gained North American hegemony using this technique, morphed into the American Century and gained global hegemony using this technique, and are now using the divide-and-rule technique as desperate attempt to hang on to global hegemony...
    1
  502. The "bad guys" are always those countries Washington DC cannot CONTROL. They are control freaks, who want to control the world and divide its resources as they see fit. After WW2 the USA (4% of global pop.) had 50% of the world's wealth (see footnote). They could gain this good life, because everybody else was "down" and "exhausted" after a 5-year global war. Obviously this was the "good life" and "good ol' days" many Americans are still dreaming of which started ending during the 1990s. Before, they had lived well at the expense of 95% of the planet which was left with the other 50% of wealth/resources. Today (US is still roughly 4% of global pop.) it has declined to 30% of global wealth, rapidly falling every year, and if East Asia is going to rise further demanding more wealth and resources for their own populations which are on average poorer that Americans (and Westerners), what are US leaders going to do about it? It's not about laws or rules. They don't follow these themselves. Footnote: 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] America's allies and foes in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues. It is how divide and rule is implemented. Set up European and Eurasian nations against each other. Leverage already existing divides. Skim off the profits. The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Brzinzki (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
    1
  503. Georgia Poland Taiwan
    1
  504. It was the "foothold" in a faraway region, as base to further own interests like trade.
    1
  505. ​ @LooseCannonYogi  Yes, excellent point.👍 The "masses" rarely gained much from the "doings" of their own upper classes, who cooperated for the own deal and own gains. The "masses" often lost out, as their jobs disappeared or they ended up "in the trenches" when the upper classes squibbled for influence.
    1
  506. ​ @atatsmail260  Thank you, and same as my above message. People in the USA/collective West must realize they are not always on the "right side of history" but live in systems of greed which have captured them.
    1
  507. Yup 👍🙏👋
    1
  508. Good play on words. 😂 The technique within the technique Tel Aviv/Jerusalem uses, is called divide-and-rule/conquer. Israel "divides" the entire Levant/Greater Middle East/East Asia on behalf of Washington DC. That makes Washington DC power players the world's greatests anti-semites [note, a "new word" which historically did not exist, and simply means "bigotry"], because the entire ME is composed of mainly "Semites" (definition of the word). The "dividers" have fooled everyone, by "playing" with the meaning of words.
    1
  509. Yes, correct. It is about achieving an equilibrium re. global resources. Striving for an equilibrium is the natural state of our planet, and human nature. Then there are man-made systems, who want more than equilibrium...
    1
  510. Meanwhile, after more than two years Boris Johnson has admitted that the war in the Ukraine is a proxy war for US/collective Western interests, and Vladimir Zelensky has stated that "there are those in the West who don't mind a long war [in Ukraine]" to extend Russia, using his peoples as tools for the gain of outsiders who drool over the profits (Mitch McConnell), or lust after the systemic expansion possible as result of great upheavals amongst human beings. Does this take the wind out of the sails of the "paid Putin puppet"-screamers, blindly chanting their MSM narratives against those who have said this from day 1? Not at all. In order to fit their world views, these tools will deny reality, rattle down the narrative to a point of making total fools of themselves. They would now have to believe that Boris Johnson, or Vladimir Zelensky are "paid Putin puppets", in order to square a circle... This is exactly what is meant with fools arguing their way into the trenches their own leaders have deceived them into. The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia. The marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s. Systemic/ideological expansion into. Eastern Europe. Balkans. Black Sea. Caucasus region. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). How old is this game called "marching empire"? Old, very old....
    1
  511. The entire system they favor in the West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often repeated nice-sounding storyline. The graphic depiction of Yin and Yang is not only valid about the "good vs bad" dichotomy (Taoism), but can also apply to the model of "UNITY/CONCORD" vs "DIVISION/DISCORD". As the model of Yin and Yang states, there is always some good in the bad, and always some bad in the good, and equilibrium is hard to achieve since human nature tends to allow the pendulum to swing past the point of equilibrium, towards the other pole. Equally, every system based on division per default, always contains some elements of forces of unity. And, the other way around: systems based on the default setting that unity is the main principle, will always contain elements of division. When studying thousands of man-made systems, one reaches the conclusion that some are more "top down" UNITY with some lower tiered "freedoms" allowed in order to keep the peace, whilst others are more "bottom up freedoms" with restrictions applying. Both meet in the middle somewhere, and then try to constantly balance powers between the various factions. A "Republic" is already a "meet-in-the-middle" approach, since it divides power on multiple tiers. What happened in Europe post-1900 can be juxtaposed onto China's recent relevant history of trying to break free from Western dominated imperialism. To anybody who knows a bit of Chinese history, it becomes clear that our Western narrative of "WW2" does NOT apply to China, since China was already in a more or less bloody war between outside imperialists and meddlers (dividers of Chinese unity using local proxies). During its Century of Humiliation, China was a classical case of "war/policy/division" by proxy. Proxies were employed, funded, armed, and financed to achieve the division of China during the Era of European Imperialism. The dividers have it easy. All they have to do to create regional/global division, is to continuously lie to foster dissent, covertly steal for inequality, always meddle using political favouritism, and eternally instigate violence, by either outright declaring war or simply allowing wars to happen (not stop these wars, aka "enabling war as eternal event). The local political forces had to compete with outside dividers which had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER during the 19th and 20th centuries. The local strategists used old strategies to try to re-introduce a fully sovereign China. A union which could be free of outside meddling, completely independent and which was there for Chinese interests first and foremost, and not at the behest of outside imperialist powers and their proxy rule and domination. During these roughly 100 years, the European imperialist powers were later joined by the USA and Japanese imperialist powers, and later Soviet and Western ideologies, all continuously using China as battleground. Trying to overcome the OUTSIDE DIVIDERS by playing the same game of more divisions, with yet more divided Chinese systems, is of course a dumb strategy, because the DIVIDERS will always win. If weak, and while weak, the outside dividers will simply politically capture the rising powers, and morph or incorporate these. Therefore, in order to overcome the outside division, those searching for more internal unity will choose a top-down form of unity, not the bottom-up form of division. You don't fight fire with fire, but with water. One doesn't fight division with more division, if the intention is more unity. Therefore when studying the "WW2" part of the Chinese Century of Humiliation (1839-1947), it becomes clear why the western proxy Chiang-Kai Shek was accused by his allies of "hoarding" his Lend-Lease, and not doing more to fight the Japanese. The local proxies in China during this battle of "post-WW1 China" as yet another link between WW1 and WW2, were already preparing for the war they KNEW would follow AFTER the Western narrative of "WW2" ended, and the West conveniently disposed of one of these outside proxies (Japan plus local collaborators). That WW1 and WW2 (1914 to 1945) had already resulted in a serious weakening of the European powers also, for the benefit of whoever was left in China (grand strategy) was also already clear. In our Western urge to name-brand wars, this post_WW2 phase is often referred to as "Chinese Civil War", whereas in reality it was simply ALWAYS an outside proxy war, carried out on the territory of China, which intended to DIVIDE China into interest zone (spheres of influence). This constant name branding affords the ability to hide the outside powers' divide-and-rule strategy of power. WW1 and WW2 were one global struggle with multiple layers and which merely had a 20 year gap in between. Do we live in eternal peace interspersed by wars, or do we live in eternal war, interspersed by peace? In the eternal battle between unity/concord and division/discord, it is we who waste our time arguing. Who is right or wrong? Is it the "weak" who are right/wrong, or is it the "strong"? Is it some the "the West" or is it some of "the rest"? Is it the "democracies" or is it the "autocracies"? Is it the "attacker" or the "defender"? Is it the "blue team" waving their banner, or the "yellow team" chanting their slogans? As they point fingers vigorously, arguing their "my ingroup" against "your ingroup"-dichotomies, here is one thing the opposites don't realize as they argue like children. Who gains from division? Who would gain from unity? As the excited dissenters extend themselves, weaken themselves and end up totally exhausted with arguments, they don't realize they are all the victims of the biggest lie in history. Who gains from eternal division? Qui bono? The finger pointers are at the receiving end of the biggest joke of history, for as long as they point the finger at someone else to try to pass the blame for their own previous actions, they stumble in broad daylight, and fall for the false prophets who deceive them.
    1
  512. Today, the geopolitical blogs of the world have a new buzzterm. "Who is going to be the 'next Ukraine'?" Most Europeans, in their sinecure "comfort zones," are 🙈🙉🙊 Yes, the proxy Ukraine. The "proxy" is always indicative of an existing divide-and-rule strategy of power. With war, Europeans are being "divided" for the gain of the "divider" (Washington DC). The hegemon, which could have avoided this war with a signed and ratified comprehensive European security agreement, which incl. Russia. Washington DC avoided, avoiding war, thereby enabling it.
    1
  513. She doesn't "support" Russia. She exposes how US/collective Western imperialism has always worked in the past.
    1
  514. If Niger can pull themselves up "by the bootstraps" of courage, then (theoretically) so can Japan. Japanese leaders and economic systems are super rich though, so those who control the world economy have them by the proverbial "balls". If they show signs of wishing to join Asian systems, the USA will cut them off, and those who will lose most are their "1%-ters" (who make the decisions).
    1
  515. Don't worry... Joe "4 more years pause" Biden will save you all. 😂 [note: heavy on the sarcasm]
    1
  516.  @aneurindavies5943  Yes, and imperialism to safeguard the American Century for the well-being of the tip of the pyramid, using divide-and-rule/conquer, both within the USA (domestic tier) and abroad in IR (global domination).
    1
  517. https://youtu.be/tR2kebxDZjw?si=q9P0xtXjA3P2i01P Auf Sanevox, vor 8 Tagen.
    1
  518.  @viorelpiscanu9425  Keep on personally sanctioning those who can make a difference, by showing them that if they become corrupted, their "emporiums" will tank 💪
    1
  519.  @viorelpiscanu9425  So true. I recognized that there is a triangle of forces which collaborate which makes citizens resisting "wrongs" by their elites difficult: the interaction of being complacent (when wrongs are exposed), being ignorant (of the issues), and indifferent (to wittnessed events). The message of the OP is that even with an own easily implemented tiny own step, every individual can contribute to bringing about change to matters which that individual values.
    1
  520.  @Tyiion  Thank you for your comment. Yes, please carry on with each and every form of activism which can potentially bring about positive changes. These will always compliment each other. Unfortunately all these things take time, and energy, which most individuals simply don't have. The intention of the OP is to show how easy it is to finally "do" something by "subtraction," rather than by "addition." (in case you're not sure what I mean with that, please respond and I'll elaborate 👍) I've studied history in detail for more than 30 years, and breaking apart the links of power is the only way. Everything else has been tried and has failed, because the top tiers of power/rule/domination are the arbiters of the "divide and rule"-strategy. They use their influence to create and "sow dissent," and keep us, the masses, divided. Whether it is the intentional effect of a predetermined strategy, or unintentional results of trying to do good going wrong, the strategy has worked ever since the dawn of modern civilisations... Cheers and keep up the good work 💪
    1
  521. It is the intention of the elites to "cut off" anybody not towing the official line. The strategy is called multiple hurdle/multiple cutoff technique.
    1
  522. "Gardens" and the rest..the "jungles" who they think are "out to get us" in the collective hive mind...
    1
  523.  @geoffreynhill2833  Yes, I actually agree with your analysis that with the political "doves" that it was (most likely) "compassion/sympathy" for the plight of survivors, which led to the favoratism of Zionism to "succeed" in the ME. That is what is meant with the saying "most of the harm in the world was caused by those who set out with good intentions". In other words, the emotionally steered, who "wish to do good", who do not consider the impact of their decisions or their standpoints. "Sympathy/compassion" for and "-ism" is however, exactly how "divide and rule" works, which I will explain in a bit longer essay below this answer. Human emotions, and those who wish to "doo good" are employed as tools by imperialist, and therefore become the "extensions" of imperilaist causes. This is ot just something I've pulled out of my sleeve, on a spur of the moment, but an actual analyses of hundreds of historical examples, of "setting out with good intentions" but then actually supporting IMPERIALISM indirectly. In imperialism, there is ALWAYS the "feeling" in supporters, of being better than others, thereby granting this support by "masses". These "masses" then in the end, usually end up "in the trenches" in the geopolitical setups they've helped to create. The "circle" is then complete.
    1
  524. see below
    1
  525.  @geoffreynhill2833  This essay is a template created out of thousands of historical examples, and equally valid for what took place in the Levant, as a strategy of POWER, the "divide and rule"-technique. The strategy of "divide and rule/conquer" is the force to influence billions of minds, and is strategy acting in conjunction with human nature (particularly, emotions). It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: that is wrong. It is misunderstood, because it is as much a strategy of "top down" measures of power players, as it is of "bottom up" failure (human nature). The "dissention" is created by fans defending the actions of their own "favorites" (individuals/systems/"-isms"/etc.), and you can study it here, in this comments section, or in politics, in debates, or on campusses, in fact: everywhere. Human beings are "dividing" themselves, because unlike their elites who steer this "divide and rule" top down, the "bottom" cannot focus on a single guideline. For individuals, like us, it does not matter how one "feels" about anything: in the systemic analysis, it is simply about "systems" and the strategies these systems used. Dividing the opposition is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling". Every system which does not specifically forbid the divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it. No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy". One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is. Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use the technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you and me as commoners will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. All power players regardless of the system of gain in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves... Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter the shark tank of the "divide and rule"-system. The favorite = favoratism = the proxy. Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish. All that is needed is a position of superior power.
    1
  526.  @geoffreynhill2833  Once one understands how this strategy works, all one needs to do is answer a few key questions re. any specific current or historical example: 1) who wielded the POWER to implement decisions? 2) who was the "chosen one" (proxy) to implement this strategy, as a "tool" of imperialism.
    1
  527. Hybrid warfare.
    1
  528. Comment like this make it more and more clear that a global balance of power is a necessity....
    1
  529. The first "globalists" were merchants, as so-called "mercantilism." Wiki: "Mercantilism is a nationalist economic policy that is designed to maximize the exports and minimize the imports for an economy. In other words, it seeks to maximize the accumulation of resources within the country and use those resources for one-sided trade." They united with other systems of POWER (like militarism, and imperialism), to achieve the own aims and goals. Then came the "internationalist." Wiki: "Internationalism is a political principle that advocates greater political or economic cooperation among states and nations.[1] It is associated with other political movements and ideologies, but can also reflect a doctrine, belief system, or movement in itself. Supporters of internationalism are known as internationalists and generally believe that humans should unite across national, political, cultural, racial, or class boundaries to advance their common interests, or that governments should cooperate because their mutual long-term interests are of greater importance than their short-term disputes." In all instances of history, such powers united top-down, in order to force realities which were beneficial to the own causes. The powers driving internationalism were not going to rely on capitalism to to ensure the future of their own products, or the superiority of other systems of gain. They were going to employ top-down POWER to enforce it, and history full of examples of such allocation of POWER (colonialism on the one side, robber barons on the other). But that was a loooong time ago, so let's concentrate on a more recent post-WW2 history of globalists ambitions in a more recent, and therefore more relevant history... Wiki: "The term first came into widespread usage in the United States.[18] The modern concept of globalism arose in the post-war debates of the 1940s in the United States.[19] In their position of unprecedented power, planners formulated policies to shape the kind of postwar world they wanted, which in economic terms meant a globe-spanning capitalist order centered exclusively upon the United States. This was the period when its global power was at its peak: the United States was the greatest economic power the world had known, with the greatest military machine in history.[20] 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."[21] America's allies and foes in Eurasia were still recovering from World War II at this time ..." In this time of mutual European exhaustion, the USA could implement its own vision for the planet, without the fear of having any other opposing force stand up to it. These forces of POWER have been around for a long time, and never ended, nor were they ever "satiated" (Bismarck). They reach their aims by "dividing" opposing forces. They united and created mutually beneficial giant converging interests systems of power. Giant cyclic dynamical systems of POWER as a "club," but "you ain't in it" (George Carlin). They intended to keep some "down" and others "out" as strategies of power. They add power to some systems if useful, and subtract power from other systems if it is beneficial. They gain if others lose.
    1
  530. My advice to BRICS/global south. The only "language" a power understands or respects is another power at eye level. Balance the USA/collective West out, and attain the natural balance.
    1
  531. They don't have to live in Russia. They live in Georgia.
    1
  532. Under the new Trump admin of Neocon imperialists, the USA will pull out of NATO and leave the EU like "Uriah" on the frontlines, to face Russia by themselves. Read the strategy: it is more than 2,000 years old, but Europeans still don't get that the USA is "not your friend" (loosely quoting Henry Kissinger). There will be sufficient numbers of Americans cheering and banner waving the resulting "just in isolation"-narrative. Just like there will always be sufficient numbers of Americans to cheer and banner wave for ANY narrative. Don't enshrine your own safety to the American people. They are as clueless as everybody else. The war in the Ukraine is to a great extent a war of Washington DC's own making: to recognize that, what must look at what did NOT happen, which was full Washington DC support for a comprehensive European security agreement (incl. Russia). No amount of cherry picking and finger pointing will deflect from what is the reality: Washington DC/Pentagon/NATO did not WANT it. Now, they will withdraw, and leave Europeans in the crosshairs, because European leaders are far too dumb to realized they've been scammed...again. Within the frameworks of man-made systems, like democracy and capitalism, the divide-and-rule system of politics allows people to believe whatever they want (within certain limitations), and conclude they are "always right" according to themselves which is why no amount of lying (incl. lying by omitting), hypocrisy, or other generally frowned-upon human flaws, are considered wrong by some people, especially those who are "interest driven." If a person chooses silence when something bad happens, then wrongful deeds become part of yourself. Yevgeny Yevtushenko: "When truth is replaced by silence, silence becomes the lie." Dietrich Bonhoeffer: "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil." Just remember that lying, deceiving, strategizing snakes and manipulators never consider themselves "evil": they are expert "finger pointers" who start screaming like babies whenever the causes they created, lead to effects. The CAUSES are downplayed or ignored (propaganda machinery), and a lot of energy is spent "finger pointing" at the EFFECTS. They are supported in this strategy of power by hordes of what can only be termed "technically useful idiots/innocents". Note that this is true about ALL man-made systems and ideologies, so I'm not picking on US/collective Western favorites like democracy or capitalism. It is inherent in all man-made systems, meaning that the age-old wisdoms like "you cannot convince people with logic and reason" are axioms of truth, and therefore the only way to create fair systems of human cooperation which are not exploitive, is by creating a balance of power (the man-made way of copying nature's way of "equilibrium").
    1
  533. The USA has already achieved it's goal, by not avoiding war in Europe in the first place, post-2000. The goal is to cause division on the rest of the planet, to avoid unity. The war has already caused "division" in Europe, and as long as there is no danger of the "single European/Eurasian power" (unity) the American Century does not care what happens next.
    1
  534. Yes, India is in grave danger of becoming "set up" against her neighbors, to drive a rift in already achieved unity (SCO, BRICS). If India refuses to cooperate, she is in great danger of becoming "carved up" into single smaller states, by the USA funding of the various opposition movements within India. If these lead to violence and civil war, India could become a "next Versailles", like European states once "carved up" into smaller states which individually had less power, and could then be steered against their neighbors. This was "the plan" for Russia before 2022: carve it up, and use the parts to encroach on China (already semi-encircled in the East and Southeast).
    1
  535. ​ @xochil1621  Search for "hasty generalization". The fact that some Muslims support Hamas does not mean all Muslims support Hamas. Hamas, just like every single "terrorist" organisation EVER, at any point in history ever, in any geographical location ever, by any religion ever, are always an EFFECT of oppression. The USA/collective West is "classifying" the terrorists they created themselves with own PREVIOUS political actions, as terrorists... Terrorism/Freedom fighting (POV) is always an "effect" not a "cause." If you live in the west, then you (personally), or your parents, grandparents or previous generations have never ever ever fought anybody your own leaders have not personally set you up against. Try me on this one. Name me the war, incl. this current "War on Terror", and I'll inform you how your own government created it (aka "lay the foundation").
    1
  536. The empire and its vassals (5 eyes) will always invade, regime change, and meddle. They are like children who think they have a "right" to march their systems everywhere they want, but if they "see" with their "eyes" a few changes in "their" backyards", watch them grab that "stick" (Theodore Roosevelt).
    1
  537. Hitler himself stated that "taking Danzig back" was just a pretext. In 1938 Hitler also said "just uniting Germans" was all he wanted. In March 1939 he broke a deal he had made under which he had received everything he demanded (Munich Accord). In March 1939 he took over Bohemia anyway. Why should anybody have believed Hitler a few months later in that he wanted a negotiation and treaty, if he had torn up a treaty?
    1
  538.  @reginaldmcnab3265  Hitler also said, and this is not verbatim but only loosely quoted, that "how could GB and France not know what my aim is", because he had proclaimed it in Mein Kampf: his aim was to get Lebensraum for the German people, and that lay in the east. Poland could either bow down and submit, and join the Axis (and maybe gain a little bit for themselves as "friends"), or be totally destroyed and become a part of the lebensraum. In order to join the Axis, Poland would have to completely abondon GB/France as "allies" (see Limitrophe States). In 1939 Poland was "between the Devil and the deep blue sea", because they could either sacrifice themselves for uncaring "empires" (GB/France), or get screwed over by the Nazis (like Czechoslovakia was), in case they refused to join the Axis fully, and bleed in a war against the commies.
    1
  539. European citizens today are still suffering from the hegemonial ambitions of some of their leaders, teaming up with Washington DC/the Pentagon. These citizens, usually around 50% of entire populations, suffer directly ("heating or eating"), or indirectly (soaring inflation), these are all "effects," not to be confused with "causes" (see concept of retrocausality, one of the most easilily misused ways to skew a timeline of events). Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or Mackinder before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Today, the people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, they are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent. Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust... Create favorites: favoratism... Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era instruments of POWER), but cannot be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
    1
  540. As wars get closer to the own borders, we will witness a return of the "screamers" as well as "experts" (lol) on the "topic" of psychohistory (search for the key word "Psychohistory"). The intention behind such "psychohistory" is however simply yet another "finger pointing" device, aimed to direct the attention elsewhere, and deflect the attention of the average citizen towards the "other side". The implication is that it is only and always, ever and ever "the other side" who are led by "psychos". An exact science, however is to analyze all leaders, even the own, and always question the means and strategies they use to achieve gain. If one is neutral, and does that, a completely different picture emerges. The reality is, that the average citizen and even experts can hardly ever pinpoint the true "psycho", since a real psycho is a chameleon, who blends into any and every system by mirroring or mimicking what they witness around them as "normal behaviour". In almost all cases a psycho is rounded up, say a mass-murderer, and neighbors are asked whether they have ever noticed anything odd, the answer is invariably along the lines of "he was always sooooo nice/helpful/smiling/etc." Fact remains, the true "psycho" cannot be spottted by average citizens. The true psycho blends in. The true pscycho mimics your behaviour, but feels nothing. The true psycho is a "natural manipulator" and habitual liar who captures the average citizen in systems of gain (pyramidically shaped systems of power). The true psycho is attracted by "power" like a moth to the flame. The true psychos therefore infest systems of the biggest potential gain, including our revered democracy/capitalism to the tune of a "<20%" saturation rate, and are allowed to "play" by the systems of gain, and their gatekeepers... Hypocrites, narcissistic behaviour, bullying, and Machiavellianism might cause unease in the overwhelming number of good people in every society, but these good people are usually not the ones "gatekeeping" (also a bully tactic) the most influencial political/corporate job openings, which are not voted for by the populations of "Western-style"-democracies, or in corporations which then proceed to buy their own favorable laws (lobbying, influence) and buy corruptable politicians in the "legalized bribes"-systems they had previously lobbied for... Being openly hypocritical and deceptive is a "rule" considered a virtue, in some circles of power. Calling these people out in an effort of shaming is pointless, since they have no shame. Footnotes/key words for further research: * 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths * Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy * The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism * Dr. Namie's research concerneing the 4 bully types of human being Since all human systems of gain (incl. politics and capitalism) are made up of human beings, the above research can be scaled up to any tier, right up to the level of states/empires. Those who justify (almost) everything which happened in the past (a divide and rule world), will justify the present. Because the "divide and rule"-world never ended...
    1
  541. The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail. The last time the USA gained big time, was after the USA had played its own still relatively small part in setting up Imperialist Europe for failure 100 years ago, starting around 1900 in small steps, using the divide and rule technique of power and from a position of unassailable geographical favor (the geographical reality can also be stated using other words, such as "competing from advantageous ground"/RAND Report, 2019). How are American leaders going to get Eurasian states/countries, incl. their own "friends" in the EU, and the rising East Asian part of BRICS, to go "down" again so the good times of "50% wealth for us" (post-WW2 strategy/McKennan) can continue? How can the USA cobtinue to attract and rake in all the runaway talent from everywhere else as these regions are destroyed by crises and war (brain drain), and as these wars are funded by the post-1913 fiat currency dollar hegemony? (see footnote) How can US leadership avoid having to deal with the OWN divided-and-ruled population when they can no longer be pacified by throwing heaps of luxury into their laps, getting successively disgruntled as the amount of afforded wealth is decreasing yearly, and ever-more unevenly siphoned off within the own system (1% owning 50% of wealth in the USA). How to keep everybody else on the planet "exhausted" and "extended," all the while pretending to be friends? Note that the current rising anger within the USA is no longer ground on moral inequalities, such as the large uprisings in the 1960s, and 1970s. The current anger on the the streets, is overwhelming carried by a massive inequality within the OWN country, with the mega-rich encroaching on the own small amounts of acquired wealth in ever more outrageous and openly advocated and politically backed corporate steps. These private equity vultures that were once set loose on the entire planet, are now coming "home to roost"... Obviously, unlike the post-WW2 "good ol' days" there is not enough to pass around anymore, as other nations rise and start demanding a fairer share of the world's resources. What are they going to do? Answer: They are already doing it. Implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power, both abroad as well as over the own people, same as ever since they existed.* footnote Money is simply a tender, which is used to allocate the resources of the planet, which are limited. "Control" the money = "control" the resources. It doesn't need a ton of books to explain what money is. Money is simply a tender, which is used to allocate the resources of the planet, which are limited. "Control" the money/currency = "control" the resources. There. Did it in twenty seconds 😂 That is the system YOU cheer for as "best that can be done." "If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu," February 17th 2024, US Secretary of State Blinken. If you don't got the money honey, YOU are going to be eaten, if YOU don't unite with your neighbors, regardless of their class, religious beliefs, race or ethnity, place of birth, language, culture or other easily implemented "divides" such as "lines drawn on a map" which are often politically exploited to the gain of the "top tiers." Money is a vehicle to allocate resources. It's the physical resources which are limited, and who controls the flow of printable money, controls the flow of resources.
    1
  542. The point on the timeline when Washington DC's actions turned from "just defending the own system" to "global imperialism", was (arguably) at some point at the end of the 19th century, when Theodore Roosevelt advocated the building of the "luxury army" as standing institution, against the explicit wishes of the founding fathers.
    1
  543.  @PubliusUSA  Thank you, it is rare to see such well-researched positions here on YouTube. Yes, upon your advice (another comment somewhere on YouTube, but I forgot where), that I researched this process in more detail. It is indeed difficult to pinpoint the exact point on the timeline when "US global imperialism" started, but it was indeed a gradual process, prepared by an inconnected process of systemic political moves in reciprocal interaction (politics/finance/big business/religious motivations/idealism/other interests), "starting" after the American Civil War. The founding fathers' initial wish to simply break free of European domination, was indeed soon overpowered from within in a step-by-step manner soon after the War of Independence from GB.
    1
  544. The problem is it only "hurts" the "arm" of the real empire, operating in the background: the USA, which uses Israel as a local "buck catcher" to create division in the ME. ‐------------------------ The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail. The faster the rest of the world realizes this, the better. Washington DC power mongers employ the divide and rule technique of power. In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Europe, and indirectly also the ME (by nodding off Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration) were divided, with a ruling. This strategy is often misunderstood, in narratives composed mostly of "being friends" or "being rivals/enemies", even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover... When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most? From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003 "What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." (end of) There is no doubt that Washington DC is attempting to repeat this "success" (pov) in the rising powers of Asia. The strategy can be observed to be implemented in the same way as was set up post-1900 in Europe, but in Europe the "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer theory) were Great Britain and France. Today, it is India being used in the same role as France was 100 years ago. In case of a wider war in Asia, as India is set up against China, qui bono if all lose? The technique Washington DC employed up to the year 2000, is an almost exact repeat of the technique they used to overpower Europe around the year 1900: DIVIDE AND RULE.
    1
  545. Regarding "the bully", and human nature, there is a direct connection between how individuals and states act and react: obviously, since states are made up of individuals with an intent of gain motive. One can therefore draw comparissons between the micro level of individuals or small scale systems (society and companies), and the macro level of corporations, big power interests, and therefore states and empires. They all act, and react in similar ways, and the connecting link is strategy. Dr. Gary Namie conducted an exhaustive series of micro level studies to conclude that there are four categories of toxic bullies in society and the workplace, based on the carefull observation and close encounters with other human beings. The four types of bullies are the Screaming Mimi, the Two-Headed Snake, the Constant Critic, and the Gatekeeper. Screaming Mimi is the fist-wielding screamer who chooses a public setting in order to vociferously point fingers in your face... Two-Headed Snake is the Jekyll and Hyde back-stabber, who steals the credit for the hard work of others. They smile and are 100% in control of body language with studied "backpats" and superficial compliments, yet behind the back spread lies, rumor, innuendo in order to damage reputations of adversaries... The Constant Critic is another one of the "finger pointing"-variety of of "friends", who's not above falsifying information, or burning documents, to pin “mistakes” on others... The Gatekeepers withhold resources others need to succeed, jealously guarding own privileges against other systems trying to make it... Our history books are full of warnings against the "screaming Mimi" variety, yet when it comes to other bully tactics, the inhabitants of systems become remarkably acquiescent, apologetic, and complacent about observed, or unobserved actions of bullying. This is eventually to their own disadvantage, and to the advantage of outside powers looking in from the distance. Bullying is of course nothing else but a strategy. All systems, on all levels of society and international relations, use strategies. So, not for the first time in history, Europeans are becoming victims of their own failed human nature: to a large extent, the own built-in biases, or indifference (some), complacency (some) and ignorance (some). Thereby indirectly supporting bully tactics by their leaders. Not for the first time in history, the opportunity to sign a mutually agreeable comprehensive European security agreement was bypassed, to the mutual detriment of all European systems. A previous time this happened was in 1905 (see below comments thread). "President Dmitry Medvedev presented the initial proposal for a revision of the European security system during his visit to Berlin in June 2008. The proposal included the signature of a legally binding treaty (involving all states and organisations active in Europe). The Russian proposal has been subsequently repeated on many occasions, including by the Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov in his address to the UN General Assembly in September 2008 ... During World Policy Conference in Evian, France on 8 October, the Russian president explained the original idea more precisely by presenting the five principles on which the new system should be based. The key element of Medvedev’s plan remains the postulate of equal security for all, which, if implemented, would mean that no actions that might be perceived as threatening the security of others would be allowed ..." CES Commentary, Center for Eastern Studies, 16.10.2008 Empires come in 4 toxic flavors: The Screaming Mimi, the Two-Headed Snake, the Constant Critic, and the Gatekeeper. If you as an individual is constantly warned about the first, watch out for what you are not being told: keep a lookout for the last three.
    1
  546.  @atatsmail260  "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 enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy. 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. Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups (e.g., Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. 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. BRICS 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. SETTLER COLONIALISM The last 500 years of European/white settler colonialism as a subsection of the divide-and-rule technique. The strategy was "farms/forts" and a systemic, slow advance into the lands of ingenious peoples all over the world. Same happened in North America, Australia, New Zealand, the Levant, South America, Southern Africa, etc. Broken promises, broken treaties, looking for excuses to make the next 'step' (ratchet principle). The only places the strategy of slow ponderous expansion failed was where the local systems were too numerous or organized (East Asia). The "template" might have various regional differences, but the end effect is always the same. Slow, step-by-step advance of the own ideology, economic systems, corporations and political power.
    1
  547. The "win/lose"-false dichotomy...
    1
  548. 57:00 Generally agreed. But "fabricating consensus" is as old as mankind, and it started as soon as human being discovered that language (as it evolved) can become a powerful tool of manipulation. All past empires and states had elements of "fabricated consensus" as top-down state measures, be it organized religion, ideologies, militarism and other "-isms". It is not a modern phenomena, only the technology changed, meaning ideas spread faster. Man did not change.
    1
  549. I suggest watching the New Atlas, where the strategy is explained in Asia. It is the same strategy known as "political capture" by means of cheap fiat currency and favoratism, which is an imperialist divide and rule strategy.
    1
  550. The USA wants a vigilante world, just like some cheap Hollywood movie: they want to be judge, jury, and executioner, based solely on their own "rules", and intent of gain, to keep everybody else down in wealth/power. "There are two ways to conquer a country. One is by invasion, the other by debt." - John Quincy Adams Europe is a lost cause. Their subjection started around 1900 It is easier to divide people and systems than it is to unite them. Dividing the opposing systems, is the first and easiest step towards power. Once divided, another system's power and strength is decreased, like taking bricks out of a wall, one by one... Around 1900, Washington DC obviously saw their "opportunity" to step in and divide Europe even more by means of favoritism, as the monarchic principle waned at the end if the 19th century, the death of Queen Victoria being the symbolic "sword in the neck" of the end of the era of European balance of power (est. 1815).
    1
  551. ​ @Jean-rg4sp  London allowed mass-immigration. Search for "retrocausality". The "cause" (mass-immigration) after WW1 lead to all following effects.
    1
  552. ​ @wiwlarue4097  That's "divide and rule," a common strategy of power, and not "jewish".
    1
  553. There is nothing in international law about a state having a "right to exist." It is an appeal to emotion, which attempts to draw a connection between the universal human rights declared under the UN after WW2, and states/empires. US corporations did the same propaganda with their "poor little corporations are also people"-line of argument. This was done effectively in order to pay less taxes, and get average citizens to pick up the tab...
    1
  554. The intention is to "morph" the smaller systems to become the tools of encirclement (proxies), or "unsinkable aircraft carriers" for the own systemic control or expansion. Set up others for failure or even death in the worse case scenario, then frame the entire story as "protecting freedom/friends/democracy" or whatever story the masses will buy...
    1
  555. "The astonishing outcome of the war in Europe had turned the United States into the patron and protector of the European empires." - John Darwin, After Temurlane GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS "Astonishing" is the incorrect word. It is "divide and rule". It is how the strategy works. A power gets others to divide systems and to fight its wars and implement division for the greater power which enjoys a natural geopositional advantage (concept of the proxy) by funding these crises/wars. Preferably without the "buck catchers" ever finding out about their role in the strategy.
    1
  556. What they are not saying, is that it is still happening, right now.
    1
  557. Canonized in ideological frameworks: "We" (ingroup) are always on the right/good side, regardless of what we do. "They" (outgroup) are always on the wrong/bad side, because of what they do. Theories based on good vs bad leave a lot of room for bias and interpretation depending on the vantage point of the storytellers of history. These stories are therefore overwhelmingly subjective, and therefore appeal to the emotions of an audience. On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: The theory is a systemic analysis which is overwhelmingly neutral and objective and is therefore a dull topic to most people on the planet. Why "dull"? Because people want to hear "stories". The theory, however, is not a "story". It states how intentions lead to effects. At its core level, the theory states that throughout history there were two opposing forces in action when it comes to the concept of gain. All other human interaction when it comes to the topic of gain are subject to this. These opposing forces are not the commonly held truism as being the forces of good vs. bad/evil, but rather those forces which wish to unite to create their own systemic concord, using a variety of techniques, and those forces which gain from division, using a variety of techniques of power. What evolves out of that as causal chain of events is then the friction, which is created as these opposing forces collide, which then fosters the emergence of narratives of good and evil, by providing the catalyst (human nature). Note: words have definitions and meanings and context matters, not only when it is beneficial from their own standpoint. Every single struggle for power ever, every single crisis about a man-made system ever, and every single war ever, has arisen out of these two opposing forces of concord/discord (causality). Anybody may of course try to find exceptions to this rule, and will find none, unless one engages in typical human behavioral patterns. Name the struggle, and one can point out whether it arose out of the attempt to create concord, or discord. Every single good vs. bad narrative (the "stories" people tell themselves, as they are creating systemically useful "ingroups and outgroups") ever has arisen from this very simple axiom. On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: At its most fundamental core, the theory states that where there are intentions by systems to create unity, the opposing forces to such unity, or systemic actors, would then try to divide observed forces of unity, using key strategies, and vice-versa: where intentions of trying to create division are observed by actors trying to create unity in systems, key strategies are employed to overcome these divisions, to achieve unity in a system. These take place at the same time, making a timeline difficult to assess, contributing to the favoring of pleasing narratives for own causes, as a way of convincing large numbers of people. Like a double-helix, these forces envelope the timeline of history. It does not HAVE a "start" or "stop." The tier of interaction is irrelevant, and where there is an intention of achieving systemic gain, the strategies will closely resemble each other: from the micro- to the most macro level of all: International Relations.
    1
  558. That is only a very tiny frame within the big picture. The "freedom" of >insert whatever< has always been the USA's argument for war since the day it was created.
    1
  559. Hamas, just like every single "terrorist" organisation ever, at any point in history ever, in any geographical location ever, by any religion ever, are always an effect of oppression. The USA/collective West is "classifying" the terrorists they created themselves with own previous political actions, as terrorists... Terrorism/Freedom fighting (POV) is always an effect not a cause. If you live in the west, then you (personally), or your parents, grandparents or previous generations have never ever ever fought anybody your own leaders have not personally set you up against.
    1
  560. Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century. The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021). This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?" The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule. Systemic/ideological expansion into: - Eastern Europe. - Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route) - Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route) Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired. "The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner"). It is today, as it was since 1776. Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemon. Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing. Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck... Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST? Foster division. Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove... These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quiet or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories." Then... 1) Divide-and-gain. If not. 2) Divide-and-control. If not. 3) Divide-and-rule. If not. 4) Divide-and-conquer. If not. 5) Divide-and-destroy. ...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing. Just claim hero status for the self, and blame everybody else for everything which goes wrong. The Albion. The Albion 2.0. The USA can gain somewhere else? Already predicted. Greenland. (Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template") Wait for it... ------------------------------------------ Footnote With Europe set up against Russia, the USA will pivot to Asia (already the strategy since Obama). We are supposed to admire them, but they never give anything of geopolitical/grand strategy value back. Ever. Ratchet principle.
    1
  561.  @annablume8147  I thank you. I would have liked to add a further comment, regarding how far our democracies/capitalist systems have become infiltrated by psychopaths, and lead by the weaklings who bow down to them, but apparrently YouTube has "ghost banned" that essay. Maybe search for: "21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths. Only 21%?" (source: was.hingto.n.p.ost do.t c...om ... news Sept. 2016). Note, that most studies range from between 4% and 25% psycho saturation rate, but are conclusive that this rate is far higher than national averages of around 1% of the population. There is therefore no reason to believe other strongholds of power, like politics, do not attract similar high percentages of suitors. ***"Psychopathy is a condition characterized by the absence of empathy and the blunting of other affective states. Callousness, detachment, and a lack of empathy enable psychopaths to be highly manipulative. Nevertheless, psychopathy is among the most difficult disorders to spot. Psychopaths can appear normal, even charming. Underneath, they lack any semblance of conscience. Their antisocial nature inclines them often (but by no means always) to criminality..." source: Psychopathytoday ***"Lobaczewski devoted his career to studying the relationship between personality disorders and politics. He concluded that individuals with disorders such as psychopathy and narcissistic personality disorder are strongly attracted to power and often constitute the governments of nations. He defined pathocracy as, 'a system of government created by a small pathological minority that takes control over a society of normal people.' In my earlier posts, I suggested that there was a danger of the United States government becoming a pathocracy. I think it is safe to say that this has now transpired." source: psycho.logy to day c o m ***"In psychology, there is a concept of a “dark triad” of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism... There’s a great deal of evidence that people with dark triad personalities are attracted to the corporate and political worlds. Research, for example, shows that people with narcissistic and psychopathic traits have a strong desire for dominance and are disproportionately common in leadership positions." source: thecon ver..sa..tio n. c o m rgds
    1
  562. Imperialists are again, after a short break, "organizing" their "violence" as the imperialistic aim and goal. To attain the rule (de jure) and domination (de facto) of the own systems OVER other independent systems which were in any particular place in the world first (aka a given status quo on the timeline of history). "The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do." Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order Their most powerful strategy is the tried and successful "divide and rule." Beware! Qui bono? Correct, the upper 1% or so of society. Study what happened in the past, and you can foresee the future of the USA. What did British elites, their 1%-ters, do as the "Empire" collapsed around them after WW2? Correct answer: they took their assests to the tax havens they had already created for themselves, leaving the rest of British society to try and pick the cart out of the rut... And there, America, is your future.
    1
  563. Homer Lea (1912) meets Friedman/Stratfor (2015). Both essentially say the same, which is the prime "fear" of the USA. Eurasian interests aligned, and which the USA has goaded wars to avoid, instigated regime change, lain the foundations for disasters, and propagandistically prepped its population.
    1
  564. ​ @zetristan4525  Every PDF document reader (apps) has the same function. You highlight what you want read, then right-click "Read Aloud." It is not "AI" as such.
    1
  565. Nuland is just a TOOL. Her choice into a position of power, was because of her own devotion and abilty to lie for the American Century and at the expense of friends... Her successor will therefore be ....[drumroll]... based on the own devotion, and ability to lie and manipulate, for the American Century, at the expense of the American Century's "fwiends." 😮
    1
  566. Strangely enough, my essay about how powerful the "divide and rule"-strategy is, is just 4 comments above this one, under this video (if you sellect "latest comments first" setting). Washington DC's "divide and rule"-strategy brought down the British Empire after around 1900. Did you know that?
    1
  567. Excellent. The revolt against France after 1804 happened in the "shadows" of the Napoleonic Wars which kickstarted in earnest in May 1803, seriously weakening France, giving the local freedom fighters a much better chance. The USA cooperatiing with Spain on Hispaniola (Dominican Republic) also makes perfect sense against this backdrop. The USA occupation after 1915 is also a part of the process of US imperialism all over Central America and the Caribbean, as per Smedley-Butler, War is a Racket. He helped the US corporations to implement very favorable "privatisations" of American interests, with the blood, and on the backs of US Marines.
    1
  568. Apologists for imperialism always discard the own actions, or simply consider them as "default valid" without bothering to ask anybody else. Globalism/imperialism created all of its own enemies. Everything the USA /collective West is fighting/combatting these days, they created themselves in the past. ------------------------ The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... 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? Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games. ------------------------------------- The people of the Africa 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance. Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent. Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers... Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games. -------------------------------------- The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, 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. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours. Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it is the only strategy which can be invisibly employed in times of war, and in times of peace. Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war... Insert levers of lies, mistrust... Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies... Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power... 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." [Critical question: Who is "we"?] And that is what they did. And that is what you are fighting for. America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist 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) regarding Eurasia for the template. 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? That is what empires have always done. Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances... The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."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 individual 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
  569. It's bigotry. There is no need to create new words.
    1
  570. The current process is another attempt at "dragging feet," while the facts are being created by military force. Since all international organisations have no real power, the only thing that counts is who the accused (Israel) have good relations to (USA/collective West). That makes any ruling realistically unenforcable. The West wields the power. The USA will simply veto all or any attempts to stop the war, impose sanctions, etc. Another ruling (genocide) by the international community will simply add to a long list of previously ignored resolutions, and allegations.
    1
  571. There is always the alternative to another side "taking the bait," (like Japan did on the 7th Dec 1941). It is the false flag operation. "Gulf of Tonkin 2.0" coming up soon folks. All it depends upon, is not the opinions of "we the people," but whether strategists calculate that they can win the emerging war scenario. Nothing else. Soon we'll have a "Gulf of Persia Incident," and our MSM repeating the "they attacked us, boohoo," headlines... Remember the Alamo? Remember the Maine? Remember WMDs? Remember, remember...
    1
  572.  @neutralitystudies  All of the below might sound like Chinese fairy tales, or "conspiracy theories". They are in fact universal strategies ... In case your own personal prerogative is finding evidence in archives, then you will never, because that is the cool thing about strategies: no politician or power monger ever has to write these things down, and a lot of the archives one could potentially find evidence, are private hands without access. Strategies (the Wiki site offers a quick overview): Deceive the heavens to cross the sea (瞞天過海, Mán tiān guò hǎi) Besiege Wèi to rescue Zhào (圍魏救趙, Wéi Wèi jiù Zhào) Kill with a borrowed knife (借刀殺人, Jiè dāo shā rén) Wait at leisure while the enemy labors (以逸待勞, Yǐ yì dài láo) Loot a burning house (趁火打劫, Chèn huǒ dǎ jié) Make a sound in the east, then strike in the west (聲東擊西, Shēng dōng jī xī) Create something from nothing (無中生有, Wú zhōng shēng yǒu) Openly repair the gallery roads, but sneak through the passage of Chencang (明修棧道，暗渡陳倉, Míng xiū zhàn dào, àn dù Chéncāng) Watch the fires burning across the river (隔岸觀火, Gé àn guān huǒ) Hide a knife behind a smile (笑裏藏刀, Xiào lǐ cáng dāo) Sacrifice the plum tree to preserve the peach tree (李代桃僵, Lǐ dài táo jiāng) Take the opportunity to pilfer a goat (順手牽羊, Shùn shǒu qiān yáng) Stomp the grass to scare the snake (打草驚蛇, Dǎ cǎo jīng shé) Borrow a corpse to resurrect the soul (借屍還魂, Jiè shī huán hún) Lure the tiger down the mountain (調虎離山, Diào hǔ lí shān) In order to capture, one must let loose (欲擒故縱, Yù qín gù zòng) Tossing out a brick to lure a jade gem (拋磚引玉, Pāo zhuān yǐn yù) Defeat the enemy by capturing their chief (擒賊擒王, Qín zéi qín wáng) Remove the firewood from under the pot (釜底抽薪, Fǔ dǐ chōu xīn) Disturb the water and catch a fish (渾水摸魚／混水摸魚, Hùn shuǐ mō yú) Slough off the cicada's golden shell (金蟬脱殼, Jīn chán tuō qiào) Shut the door to catch the thief (關門捉賊, Guān mén zhuō zéi) Befriend a distant state and strike a neighbouring one (遠交近攻, Yuǎn jiāo jìn gōng) Obtain safe passage to conquer the State of Guo (假途伐虢, Jiǎ tú fá Guó) Replace the beams with rotten timbers (偷梁換柱, Tōu liáng huàn zhù) Point at the mulberry tree while cursing the locust tree (指桑罵槐, Zhǐ sāng mà huái) Feign madness but keep your balance (假痴不癲, Jiǎ chī bù diān) Remove the ladder when the enemy has ascended to the roof (上屋抽梯, Shàng wū chōu tī) Decorate the tree with false blossoms (樹上開花, Shù shàng kāi huā) Make the host and the guest exchange roles (反客為主, Fǎn kè wéi zhǔ) The beauty trap (Honeypot) (美人計, Měi rén jì) The empty fort strategy (空城計, Kōng chéng jì) Let the enemy's own spy sow discord in the enemy camp (反間計, Fǎn jiàn jì) Inflict injury on oneself to win the enemy's trust (苦肉計, Kǔ ròu jì) If all else fails, retreat (走為上策, Zǒu wéi shàng cè) For a better understanding, one must of course read many more books. Regardless of timepoint in history, ancient or modern, or the ethnicity/religion/origin/language of the strategists. Strategies are of course, universal and unbiased.
    1
  573.  @neutralitystudies  IMO, these strategies are intentional. On the global scale at the time of US independence, the only real threat to the existence of the USA was if Europe united (for whatever inexplicable reason). US counter strategy would therefore obviously have been to "sow dissent" between European powers, which was easy, since Europeans were already "divided". However, European powers at the time typically temporarily united for the sake of specific purposes, and one such purpose could have been to effect a multitude of seperate states in North America, which European powers could then use to "play divide and rule" with forever. In "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies, the objective is to "set up" powers against each other, in order to gain some or other own advantage. The US Civil War ("sold" to us as "mainly saving poor slaves" was of course nothing else but "mainly retaining the single hegemony on the North American continent" for Washington DC). Note how in this "big picture" (geopolitics) the USA fought a war to retain own unity, but that in Europe they enterred existing wars to support division. Regardless of the narratives usually assotiated with esp. WW1, and WW2, that is what was effected. Europe always remained in disunity. (Same as with "poor slaves", the appeal to emotion is always to disguise own goals, by advancing a "humanitarian aspect" of crises and wars)
    1
  574.  @neutralitystudies  With regard to evidence for the above, of the long history of US influence in Europe, and the "freedom and democracy argument". "In Holland, a bourgeois democratic revolution had been defeated and its leaders, who had been instructed in the American Revolution by John Adams, were cruelly suppressed or driven into exile by the Stadtholder, William V, Prince of Orange, in league with the old oligarchs and with the intervention of Britain and Prussia. Adams and Jefferson agonized for the Dutch Patriots, but felt that they had been betrayed by their own excesses as well as by their Bourbon ally. The fact that France, pledged to the Patriots, had not lifted a finger in their support offered a melancholy lesson for the United States..." (from ugapress manifoldapp) Irrelevant of intentions, it fits the definition of "sowing dissent" in an existing "system". Irrelevant of whether the reader has any personal preferences: the actions fit words, and words have definitions, which are a strategy. Divide others, to avoid unity. Of course, at this early stage the USA had no way to implement "rule" in any form. A divided Europe suited Washington DC just fine, because should Europe ever unite, it could pose an existential threat to the new USA... The more division in Europe, the better. Of course, esp. today, most people love the "freedom and democracy"-arguments, but back then they simply "sowed dissent".
    1
  575.  @neutralitystudies  You are most likely aware of how divide and rule works, but most people (and countries) don't like to admit how they actually get involved in the process. A quick 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). 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. 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." [editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things] "Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way. There is an entire palate of examples of "dividing Europe" on multiple levels, and gain an advantage. These multiple examples are not "anecdotal", or "cherry picked", but form a pattern in a political game (in geopolitics/grand strategy = avoid the unity of "others", because unity = strength). 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. Robert Greene of course, also a strategist (the "48 Laws of Power").
    1
  576.  @neutralitystudies  Finally, I wish to compliment you on your excellent work, and the top-notch nature of your many guests. I find it disappointing that the "YouTube algorithm" doesn't seem to favor your titles, and your interviews always appear waaaay down on the list of suggestions. Maybe you could find somebody to help you out with that, because the message of your guests must be spread, so Europe unites more, takes more poltical will into the own hands, and starts truly "avoiding wars" in Europe.
    1
  577.  @neutralitystudies  IMHO the strategy of "divide and rule/conquer" is always used to "steer" events, even if there is never a guarantee for success. One can ask if the white leaders of South Africa intentionally used "divide and rule" in RSA, or whether it was simply convenient for them to use animosities between the races in order to gain ultimate power. Note, even blacks in SA were divided (Xhosa did not like the Zulu, as tribalism, for example). There were also Asians, who "felt" better than blacks and Indians, but were still "lower" than whites. This "divide and rule was simply called Apartheid to disguise what whites were really doing. Creating a giant "kiss up/kick down" system in which everybody would have to come to the hegemon for a "ruling". Of course, nobody who practices this strategy, will openly admit to be doing it, so euphemisms like Apartheid are invented. A chief means used in this strategy is "favoratism". A "favorite" is chosen, usually based on emotional argumentation, and granted more "access to power" of the "divider". One can juxtapose this example of Apartheid, to the states and empire level of history. One could ask if the British ever openly stated that they were going to use "divide and rule" in India, and all their other colonies. Of course they didnt, they simply "favored" some ethnicities like the Sihks or Ghurka (Nepal) and gave them more power and privileges. That then logically led to a "pecking order". In fact, in politics, "divide and rule" is basically everywhere. Politics, incl. international relations, is "divide and rule", whether the politician wants to or not. With regards to Europe, yes, the strategy basically carried itself, but just take the post-WW2 era, and the massive amount of hatred which existed. All it needed was a policy to unite, like NATO or the EU (kickstarted by the Montanunion), which the "alpha" supported, and did not oppose. This is what I meant with "steering events". Of course, a common enemy (communsim "declared" by the new hegemon, with the Truman Doctrine) is always helpful. I'm happy that you are at least considering the theory, and not discounting it outright. I have written about fifty essays, filled with links and evidence as I explained in this short answer about Apartheid = Divide and Rule. The strategy will always disguised in an euphemism (the Truman Doctrine was "divide and rule", since it "divided Europe", with a "ruling" by a hegemony), which makes me conclude that it was indeed intentional, as revealed by events unfolding. I've subbed, and am eagerly awaiting new material.
    1
  578.  @neutralitystudies  To add to the above, every -ism provides an opportunity for leaders/politicians to use divide and rule (both sociology and politics, both domestic politics, and international relations), and there will of course also always be examples of individuals trying to bridge divides at the same time. In other words, in order to (historically) discover whether the policies of "divide and rule" were stronger than the forces trying to create unity, is to look at the outcomes.
    1
  579.  @neutralitystudies  Thank you for the response. I have never officially published my essays, but basically posted them all over YouTube the past 6 or 7 years, as I realized the world was drifting towards another war. I had usually spread my essays over a wide variety of YouTube videos, so that the effect of what I wanted to achieve sort of evaporated: the readers didn't "get" my message. I will send you a few of my essays per email which would give you an overview of where I'm coming from, noting the key theory of "How first London (pre-1945), then Washington DC used 'Divide and Rule/Conquer'-strategies", based on their geographical advantage to become/stay the world hegemon" at key watershed moments in time. Please ignore the sometimes "tongue in cheek" nature of some of these essays (of references to videos), because they were never intended to be published as a scholarly work, but rather for a wider/younger audience of YouTube. The audience was intended to be teens or average folks, therefore the joviality or casual nature of my comments, but I assure you, the threory is serious. Rgds
    1
  580. It's how divide and rule works...
    1
  581.  @MargaretKlassen  It's "divide and rule." Yes, you are correct. Empires don't make "friends," they make useful alliances for their own gain. Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or the British Empire's Mackinder/Pivot of History before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that resources cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their geographical advantage. With re. to how tools to implement the strategy are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..." Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves. Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as Kissinger implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combated by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today. Today as we watch on, the Ukraine is being burnt to the "last Ukrainian soldier" accompanied by cheers of "...but, but, but they had a choice!!" Poland will be next to be given a "choice," if the Ukraine fails as US/Western proxy and tool, in a long list of previous examples of the Washington DC/Pentagon-steered global strategy.
    1
  582. Kennedy said:"Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy, or of a collective death-wish for the world." Biden said: "First time since the Cuban Missile Crisis, we have a direct threat of the (use of) a nuclear weapon if in fact things continue down the path they are going." "Sleepy Joe" was a bit late with his realisation, unlike the Kennedy admistration, which made a compromise agreement and averted "MAD".
    1
  583. Diesen does not advocate for it. He opposes it. He is explaining what the USA/collective West actually did do following the Wolfowitz Doctrine of total control (aka "full spectrum dominance").
    1
  584. WW1 was the USA's hitherto biggest "regime change operation" (Germany) and "debt trap diplomacy" intended to bring down their biggest rivals: the British Empire. Because here is what they tell you is "history" in thousands and thousands of books and docs: the "German people" or "German leaders" were the ones (fingers pinting) who "forced Wilhelm II into exile, to abdicate" or variations of that. Here is what they (usually) don't say (lie by omission): That it was the own side which had previously coerced other German leaders into forcing the German government out of office, because that was a condition for negotions to take place in the first place. 1) coerce German leaders to topple the current government 2) leaders topple the current government 3) omit step 1), or pretend it never happened, and "write history" that pleases the own feelings... 4) repeat the story again and again No amount of finger pointing deflection, personal standpoint, or any other justifications change this causal chain of events though. "The President would deem himself lacking in candor did he not point out in the frankest possible terms the reason why extraordinary safeguards must be demanded. Significant and important as the constitutional changes seem to be which are spoken of by the German Foreign Secretary in his note of the 20th of October, it does not appear that the principle of a government responsible to the German people has yet been fully worked out or that any guarantees either exist or are in contemplation that the alterations of principle and of practice now partially agreed upon will be permanent. Moreover, it does not appear that the heart of the present difficulty has been reached. It may be that future wars have been brought under the control of the German people, but the present war has not been; and it is with the present war that we are dealing. It is evident that the German people have no means of commanding the acquiescence of the military authorities of the empire in the popular will; that the power of the King of Prussia to control the policy of the empire is unimpaired; that the determining initiative still remains with those who have hitherto been the masters of Germany. Feeling that the whole peace of the world depends now on plain speaking and straightforward action, the President deems it his duty to say, without any attempt to soften what may seem harsh words, that the nations of the world do not and cannot trust the word of those who have hitherto been the masters of German policy, and to point out once more that in concluding peace and attempting to undo the infinite injuries and injustices of this war the Government of the United States cannot deal with any but veritable representatives of the German people who have been assured of a genuine constitutional standing as the real rulers of Germany." [Source: International Notes: Diplomatic Notes Prepared By Allan Westcott, Ph. D., Instructor, U. S. Naval Academy November 1918 Proceedings Vol. 44/11/189 GERMANY'S EFFORT FOR PEACE Germany Approaches President Wilson.—The German Chancellor, Prince Maximilian of Baden, on October 6 addressed to President Wilson a message requesting his intervention for peace and the conclusion of an immediate armistice. Austria-Hungary sent a request couched in similar terms.]
    1
  585. Why is anybody surprized? Ever since its inception (1776), the only danger posed to a continued rise of the USA, was a combination of European (now, Eurasian) states... Take it from there...
    1
  586.  @gerasmus  Thank you for reading. I was born in the Western Cape, near Cape Town. In case you are part of the growing international community interested in geopolitics, welcome to the club 🙂
    1
  587. Trump is an imperialist.
    1
  588. During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from "weapons of long range destruction" (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers (technological stand). The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from "weapons of long range destruction" as it was around the year 1945. It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s anymore. HISTORY RHYMING Today there are nukes. By golly, who would've guessed... Regardless of what some "experts" proclaim, the logic of the "bomber will always get through" of the 1930s, is repeated today, and these various types of nukes will always get through in sufficient amounts to wipe any power off the map. Even if it survives as state or country, it will no longer be a world power. All it needs is sufficient numbers of MIRVs in order to sacrifice some (incl. duds to attract/distract/overwhelm the air defense), so that the mass of the rest will reach their intended targets. So the "experts" tell you their Patriots will stop them. These Patriots and other missiles and air defense systems can be overcome by implementing a very simple programmable and unjam-able multiple-layered enertia-guided and therefore unstoppable attack, as first-strike, and the first incoming Russian nukes, stationed just 15 minutes flight-time away, will act as multiple air burst to wipe out any attempt to intercept them in the radius of 100 miles, and the following strikes in their wake a few seconds later will mostly get through. Keep on poking the bear. Get the Ukraine to try and blind the Russian early-warning radar systems. Keep on "poking by proxy" and we will find out, because we are ruled over by idiots, obfuscators, liars, deceivers and manipulators: not all of them, but enough to implement the divide and rule strategy of power. Keep on poking, and find out that we've always been ruled by chest-thumping slimeballs and psychopaths: not all of them, but enough to implement age-old strategies of power, intended to gain as others lose. Just don't for a minute think, the default "other side" doesn't know what our leaders are up to... Don't for a minute think that in the attempted twisting of observable reality to deceive oneself, that one can deceive others. Should the above unfold, it doesn't matter anymore how one chest-thumps around about how "superior" or "always right" one always was while setting off on the MARCH ROUTE of the empire. It doesn't matter anymore if one lives in the EU or Northern Europe, going "but, but, I'm sooooo innocent." It doesn't matter if one chants "trust our leaders, cos they know better cos cos we democracies." It doesn't matter anymore about how the few survivors brag about "how man wussians they also bagged". Then it doesn't matter anymore, because our myopic leaders will no longer be in a position to implement wrongs per "new Versailles" (currently planned in Switzerland for mid-June) and get away with it. Of course, they are going to insist on only negotiating with the true representatives of the peoples of Russia, who truly desire peace just like our own superior Western leaders who have only always wanted peace, cos they said so, and since that turned out soooooo gweat last time around (Treaty of Versailles, when the other side wasn't invited either). The conference is of course a total waste of taxpayer money, just like Versailles was 100 years ago (1919). Before Moscow gets into that position of becoming carved up and used as a tool to encroach on the next in line, China, it will wipe the entire West off the effin map FIRST. The USA/collective West (systemically) no longer have a geographical position of power. Guess who will live longest in the "nuclear winter"-scenario? (theory) Short answer: NOT you (personally). Longer answer: The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for in the late-20th century and these days, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names. Because during the next war set up by the dividers of the world, from their assumed GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER, it does not matter "who is right" and it does not even matter "who is left," loosely quoting Churchill, but rather in what state the leftovers are going to be in. Then even after all that, one will notice a remarkable reality: these "leftovers" will strut around, claiming to never never done anything wrong...
    1
  589. At 36.00 minutes. Yes, when the USA/NATO started marching towards Russia during the 1990s, it has been Washington DC "holding the cards", and the "winner" whatever happened. War, crisis, peace, whatever happens, the USA "wins" if someone else loses. Because what they are after is European/Eurasian disunity and division. Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, proxies, 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? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. You don't have to study thousands of books and watch endless debates on the topic "How US foreign policy works." Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it. Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism. The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism. The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and using friends, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism... It means to AVOID the unity of all others. 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 individual 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. Washington DC and "American interests" have already "won". See Nordstream: American corporations buying up the ruins, pivoting to Russia, and when the "peace" is reinstated in some future, a *US corporation will own the infrastructure, siphon off profit as middleman, and Washington DC will CONTROL the resource flow in Europe de facto and de jure... Europeans are the biggest dumba~~es on the planet. Sorry, no offense...
    1
  590.  @TLA-xm1nx  Correct. Tel Aviv supporting Hamas was also a divide-and-rule ploy to split the Palestinians into 2 camps, which Israel intended to benefit from.
    1
  591.  @hk3339  London and Washington DC have always used the divide and rule strategy against other states, disguised as being "fighting for freedom and democracy."
    1
  592. The USA has always been a covert narcissistic self-centered empire, which hid its true self by an overtly proclaimed "saviours of the world"-historicity. It is self-deception. US citizens never fought anybody Washington DC did not set them up against FIRST, and no American soldier ever died anywhere on the planet Washington DC powermongers had not previously lain a foundation of division, which US elites attempted to gain from by strategizing their way towards gain. If anything, I feel sorry for the death and suffering of millions of US soldiers, who died the past 250 years for the greed of an expansionist, centralized political setup.
    1
  593. Israel is the American Century's "buck catcher" to implement division in the Middle East (East Asia). Doublespeak was not invented in 1984. "Just helping our friends" = supporting some dumbass to do our bidding. "Give us the tools and we will fight" = If you have to beg for support, you ARE already "the tool"... And these overlords? In the end, they always "run off with all the effin money" (quote George Carlin, explaining how divide-and-rule works). Because that is what the elites always do when their worldly empires fade away.... They take their own money to the tax havens they had invented for themselves, and leave the average Joe to pull the cart out of the rut... This will repeat.
    1
  594. 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. It does not matter if the actors are aware that they are aiding and abetting a divide-and-rule strategy of power they are probably not aware of. What matters is that The American Century looooves capitalism, corporatism, and democracy, because it offers the unending flow of those in search of profit and in search of personal/systemic POWER, who then cooperate with the hegemony at the expense of the own populations. For the "empire" ruling in the background divide-and-rule means advantages on multiple tiers resulting out of the fact that it is implemented (an example here, are the actions of Sir Lawrence of Arabia, who might or might not have known of his "role" in the Empire's divide-and-rule strategy of the Levant, and ME around WW1).
    1
  595. The only "losers" here are the people of West Asia. Everybody else on the fringes, are the liars, instigators, warmongers, crises actors, and the "cheering crowd" of supporters...
    1
  596. ideology Source: Dictionary noun 1. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. "the ideology of democracy" Similar: beliefs, ideas, ideals This "box" called "TV" billions bow down to, has got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives in sinecure comfort... Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders who appear to them in these "boxes". The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should sent "dumb, stupid animals" (quote Henry Kissinger) to kill for, is democracy in colusion with corporatism, and the slogan they chant is "Make the world safe for democracy". Strange, that their Bible says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders constantly lie and call upon them to kill to spread democracy. One ideal, must be wrong. When one criticizes an ideologue's ideology, they expose their true nature.
    1
  597. Yes, a perfect short explanation of one of the oldest forms of resistance against outside meddling. "BALANCE OF POWER, a phrase in international law for such a “just equilibrium” between the members of the family of nations as should prevent any one of them from becoming sufficiently strong to enforce its will upon the rest. The principle involved in this, as Hume pointed out in his Essay on the Balance of Power, is as old as history, and was perfectly familiar to the ancients both as political theorists and as practical statesmen. In its essence it is no more than a precept of commonsense born of experience and the instinct of self-preservation; for, as Polybius very clearly puts it (lib. i. cap. 83): “Nor is such a principle to be despised, nor should so great a power be allowed to any one as to make it impossible for you afterwards to dispute with him on equal terms concerning your manifest rights.” (Wiki, similar Britannica, etc.) A "balance of power"-logic, has NOTHING to do with imperialism. It is the exact opposite. Create a just balance of all powers, if not, suffer the consequences. The concept of the "balance of powers" can of course easily be misinterpreted, or be intentionally misconstrued, as the "other side" (ingroup vs. outgroup dynamics) being imperialist, or wanting to "rule the world." In that manner, the own (ingroup) imperialism, or wish to rule and dominate the world can be hidden. Notice how in books and debates, the "soft words" are often elevated in importance, because the dissenters think that the world was built on soft words...
    1
  598. Yes. That is divide-and-rule.
    1
  599.  @jamjinn786  As weak states without support (even the SU/USSR was on the side of Israel). Israel was supported by empires and monied interest groups. Now it is loosely organized hybrid warfare groupings without a clear command structure. The USA/collective West (incl. Israel) have created these groups themselves for the past 100 years.
    1
  600. Almost all with a nice "retirement package" of the war stocks they are invested in...
    1
  601. The foundations are already there. SCO (foundation for a comprehensive East Asian security agreement). "BRICS" (global re-alignment of economic interests).
    1
  602. The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself. This is the theory. According to the scientific process, these proclaimed "rules" must now be countered, by trying to find exceptions to these two rules. According to the concept of "meaning of words" all exceptions to the rules which have been proclaimed, must be questioned: does this war for which the foundation was lain, or the war which was instigated, not avoided, "false flagged" into being, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, lead to disunity in another region of the planet (another continent). The theory, as stated by the words used, is not interested in anything else. It can either be falsified or it cannot. ------------------------------------- "The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015 Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA. That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia). Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, which is that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory." That IS the premier priority of the powers not IN Eurasia, and still is. Here are the critical questions. If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division? How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"? Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power. In a nutshell: Implement and fund delusional propaganda games. Nothing of substance, with the implemented events often the exact opposite of the the loudly proclaimed "values". In the background, keep other systems either down or out of the own systems of gain and luxury life (50% for us, the minority), on ALL tiers, often by force, coercian, or at gunpoint, if it cannot be bought or corrupted, all accompanied by continuous flurry of words without meaning, spread by the exact systems which gain from keeping everything the way it is (a "divide and rule"-setup of the world). That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power). It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
    1
  603. Trump is a figurehead. Just like every POTUS.
    1
  604. Whatever the outcome in the Ukraine, and Israel/Gaza in our immediate future might be, the dividers in Washington DC have already achieved their aim. Eurasia is divided into multiple "teams", all arguing with each other and pointing fingers, playing the blame game, unable to unite into greater powers. Today: The sooner ALL these "divided" people realize this, the better it will be for ALL the people. War is a great divider. Such divisions last generations. "Divide and rule" extends into each and every mind. Line-drawing does not only take place on maps, but it also goes straight though entire societies. The "aim" is war and everything else which contributes to division.
    1
  605.  @Lost_Johnny  It is a globally implemented proactive divide-and-rule strategy.
    1
  606. Hamas, just like every single terrorist organisation ever, at any point in history ever, in any geographical location ever, by any religion ever, have always been an effect of oppression. The USA/collective West is classifying the terrorists they have created themselves with own PREVIOUS political actions, as terrorists... Terrorism/Freedom fighting (POV) is always an "effect" not a "cause." If you live in the west, then you (personally), or your parents, grandparents or previous generations have never ever ever fought anybody your own leaders have not personally set you up against. Name the war, incl. this current "War on Terror", and follow back through the previous actions, and one can inform oneself how our own governments have created it (aka "lay the foundation").
    1
  607. Fallacy in reasoning. It has been implanted onto your brain, presumanbly via repetition, that one can shift the blame of a wrongful deed onto a third party. The only party to blame for genocide, is the side carrying it out.
    1
  608. Someone who lived 50 years ago would have said the same about Nelson Mandela.
    1
  609. Someone who lived 100 years ago would have said the same about Irgun, Lehi, Palmach...oh, wait a minute...
    1
  610. Whose "stooge" are you?
    1
  611. Black Legend. To "write" the history of the "other side" is as old as mankind.
    1
  612. The USA has achieved everything it has set out to do already. Cause division in Europe. Everybody is discussing the effects of US/NATO/EU systemic expansion, rather than pointing at the causes of the conflict... The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) 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 outsiders 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". "The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015 Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite. Endless wars, constant dissent. Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players. Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down. Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Who wields the POWER? Who has had 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-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history. Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV." Different Empires. Different eras. Same games. The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy". The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys". 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." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet. And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences. America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism. The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over. The reason I always recommend these books first is because it points to how divide-and-rule is implemented, even though it is never mentioned. Anybody who knows how divide-and-rule is implemented, can read any book and then recognize the tell-tale details revealing the strategy. This is divide-and-rule, a long-term strategy of power which is revealed by the events, not the words used by analysts who are all biased to an extent. The overall strategy is divide-and-rule, and one can implement it with a few key advantages, mainly: 1) the distance from the evolving events 2) the POWER (economic, political, military, financial) to afford advantages to own instruments of power 3) the time to wait, without compunction, granted by the luxury of 1) "distance," to await how events one has contributed to, unfold. We in search of unity, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC... PIC: Political Industrial Complex FIC: Financial Industrial Complex NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex MIC: Military Industrial Complex CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature. The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector). Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting. The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
    1
  613.  @catalincarceanu7991  Yes, the main thing which has brought them power and wealth. 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 individual 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
  614. Europe lost after 2007, after ignoring a Moscow proposed comprehensive European security agreement, based on fair terms which did not disadvantage any European state. As an "answer" the USA proposed to continue the encroachment on Russia, planned in the early 1990s, and implemented starting in the late-1990s,. All the little European poodle nations were too weak to effectively counter the own so-called friends in Washington DC... Guess who is paying the price today?
    1
  615. “Offensive realism.” “Defensive realism.” The Albion is on a marching route, and has its tools called "collective West" in check, via a giant cyclic dynamical system called "Globalism"... Russia has been on the defensive since 1990. Richard Black, fmr. US Senator: "We don’t care how many Ukrainians die. How many women, children, civilians, military will die. It’s like an important football match, and we want to win." You are the game to these people. They don't care about you. Whether it's the Ukraine or anywhere else on the planet acting as their proxy to "extend" (see strategy papers, as the desired effect of meddling) others with violence and war. Save yourself a discussion with the so-called "collective Western" ideologically indoctrinated, and chest-thumping dogmatists with their "paperwork". Most representatives of these types are completely resistant to arguments. It's a waste of time. That's why they immediately engage in whataboutism, resort to cognitive biases/fallacious argumentation, deflect otherwise (finger pointing), or even personally attack anyone who dares to even critically question their sacred narratives. Their immaculate "heroes" (POV), their ideologies, and belief systems, are beyond reproach, and anybody who attributes the millions of deaths on the marching routes of their man-made systems the EFFECTS of own meddling, is "a danger". These types thrive in large money-driven collectivized and ideologically motivated "think tanks", and these systems have 24/7 and 365 days a year to come up with some or other lame excuse for every argument to deflect away from very simple logic and reason. One of the world's oldest strategies: "Do not do to others, as you do not wish to be done unto." The causal chain of effects leads back to the root cause of every human conflict. Yes, the GOLDEN RULE is an actual strategy of power. Stick to it to avoid laying the foundation for crises, or creating conflict potential, or use it as guiding principle to avoid differences from spiraling out of control.
    1
  616. It tries to pay others to fight wars the USA gains from.
    1
  617. Yes, an imperialist. Trump and his admin, also "signed away" East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights (territorial expansion for the favored nation) and orchestrated the Abrahamic Accords without first settling the Palestinian question permanently, with an equal state for Palestians. In other words, Washington DC refused to get tough with Tel Aviv, by demanding an end to the occupation, and demanding an end to the Knesser's stand on Greater Israel, with a subjected (quote Rabin/quote Netanyahu "less than a state" status for Palestinians). Such an endorsement of the apartheid reality in Israel ever since forever, made Oct 7th, and the current slow unravelling of the Abrahamic Accords following Israeli "responses" to Oct 7th (escalation, spiral model) a predictable outcome in game theory.
    1
  618. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine
    1
  619.  @casteretpollux  Yes, around the turn of the century (2000), Russia was clearly being "led on" to believe that they could become a member of the elitist "Western Club". Meanwhile, in the back rooms of power plans were drawn up to encroach on Russia with the expansion of the own systems, principally NATO, which would have caused a security issue for Moscow.
    1
  620. The USA is an imperialist state. Americans looooove imperialism, and top-down force. Their most popular presidents were all imperialists and ideologues. They are PROUD of it. Their entire culture reflects it. Jimmy Carter called the USA the "most violent nation in the history of the planet," and their ideologies (democracy/capitalism/imperialism) have led to the deaths, and suffering, of millions, and have turned millions in refugees.
    1
  621. @ The OP seems to think that the war started in 2022. It did not. This conflict is about US/EU/NATO encroachment (via proxies). The current war is not the "cause" but the effect of the attempted NATO expansion of an expansionist American Century (collective West). It is absolutely and totally mainly the USA at fault, and for the USA to settle peacefully, and Russia will settle for nothing less that a US/EU/NATO withdraw from Eastern Europe.
    1
  622. The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) 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 outsiders 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". "The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015 Reality? "Politicians are the best example of how idealists can become idiots, because it can only be an idiot who believes that peace can be forced through war." - Stephanie Guss Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite. Endless wars, constant dissent. Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS. Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down. Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Who wields the POWER? Who has had 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-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history. Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? Today we see millions of followers of Islam, praying in their mosques in West Asia, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS, and 125 years ago we saw millions of followers of Christ, praying in their churches, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS. Oh, wait...we didn't see it... We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", and "as seen on TV." Different Empires. Different eras. Same games. The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy". The opposition are the "bad guys".
    1
  623. The scorpion and the frog is basically the old saying "cutting off your nose to spite your face" (self harm, while attempting to harm others).
    1
  624. Trying to explain how systems use strategies of power to people blinded by ideology or idealism is a waste of time. Like trying to explain what color looks like to somebody who is blind, or what classical music sounds like, to somebody who is deaf. These people would rather end up in the muddy trench, deceived into going there by their own leaders... THE PATTERN ALWAYS RHYMES Arabian Peninsula = Between the sea and the sea (Mediterranean/Indian Oceans) and should have included ALL peoples who lived here. The barriers to unity were in the brain (divisive tribal thinking), to the detriment of all when the outside "dividers" came. The lines in the sands were historically drawn by outsiders/empires to achieve gain, and are currently USED by empires to perpetuate gain for the own systems. The DIVIDED are led like lambs to the slaughter. Blind with regards to their own roles in the divide-and-rule strategy of OUTSIDERS. Historically, who gained from DIVISION these past 125 years? Who would have gained from a fair UNITY on the Arabian Peninsula, when the faraway "empires" came for them after WW1? Correct answer: the people who lived there. After WW1 the British- and French empires used the divide-and-rule technique, to carve up the Arabian Peninsula and subvert all the people living here. The lines were drawn to carve up the oil resources, strategically valuable territory, and to AVOID one power from gaining too much of the POWER which these reserves would afford them. The "divide-and-rule strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it creates ingroups of "empire fans" who gain and can become very very rich, even as millions of others suffer. THE PATTERN ALWAYS RHYMES Treaty of Versailles = Divide and rule of and over neighbours (Europe/Eurasia), and the misguided logic they imposed on their neighbours whom the dividers wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule (divide-and-rule onto and over the weakened local systems who "lost the war" and which they wished to create top down). After WW1 European leaders who did not understand the logic of Chesterton's fence, and destroyed what they did not understand (European Balance of Power, as per Concert of Europe, 1815). Who was "let in" and who was "left out" of such systemic "line drawing" agreements/accords? Zoom into the present... THE PATTERN ALWAYS RHYMES Abrahamic Accords = Divide and rule of and over direct neighbours (Arabian Peninsula), and the misguided logic they imposed on their neighbours whom they wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule (divide-and-rule onto and over the weaker local systems). Who was "let in" and who was "left out" of such agreements/accords? The leaders of West Asia are all "divided loyalties" as long as they bow down to outside interests and value their own vested interests before the interests of the entire region (oil resources which had been turned into US/EU/Swiss assets for a few chosen ones over the span of 50 years, or the "my precious borders"-mentality of ideologues, past the well-being of the majority of the own peoples). One of the biggest misconceptions of history is the ability of the ideologically/systemically indoctrinated individual to view themselves as unique when part of a bigger group, whereas as a general rule their own histories rhyme with other historical events, based on the systemic analysis. The will to keep the own systems APART from their neighbours (divided by ideology and rulings) always backfires, when one is no longer "King of the Mountain" (strategy of power). By the time everything implodes, the rulers/dividers are long gone, having previously brought their own wealth and families to safe havens. This subsection of history will repeat, again and again. Don't make the same mistake. Do not fight for division and empty promises by outsiders. YOUR "horizons" are given to you by the texts in your own history books, which tend or intend to LIMIT your horizon, not open it.
    1
  625. Yes, correct. But one small quip: the USA starred provoking a weakened and retreating Russia since the 1990s (Clinton admin).
    1
  626.  @earthlingthings  History does not "begin" anywhere. However there are points on the timeline which stand out, and one could call these "watershed moments" on the timeline. For example, WW1 and Versailles were such "watershed moments" which occurred, and when the responsibility for a region passed from one hegemon to another. It makes little sense, for example, to blame the Ottoman Empire for decisions made in London or Paris after WW1. One can blame Constantinople/Istanbul, or point out the responsibility of the leaders here, if decisions were made before WW1. Rgds 👍👋
    1
  627. At 23:03 minutes, agreed 100% with Tom Sauer. I think Washington DC knew perfectly well that their attempts to aggressively expand NATO into Georgia and the Ukraine would pose a great risk to these regions. It is not that they were stupid, it is that they didn't care. War is a great divider of human beings. It creates mistrust, and fear will "divide" Europe again, just like the Truman Doctrine did, cut Europe off from more affordable Russian raw materials, bind the weak European poodle nations closer to Washington DC, and avoid what Brzinski wrote about as the Washington DC fear of a more united Eurasia. Europeans killing Europeans, spreading hatred and fear, with Washington DC reaping the rewards while "sitting on the fence, eating popcorn and chips." For the warhawks in Washington DC, what's there not to like?
    1
  628. Beware of the divide-and-rule strategy. It gave whites ("Europeans") the basis of the power in the past, and they still employ it systemically today, on multiple tiers, and the BASIS of their POWER was the ability to keep all the other states/countries/races in the world "down" in power, by setting them up against each other, to a point of warring each other. The advantage in power afforded to a system by a geographical distance from rival powers, in combination with parallel factors like an advanced political system with entrenched institutions, wide-ranging trade- and financial system, high population density, a skilled and highly educated work force, favorable climate, abundant raw materials or safe access to these, high level of industrialization, a technological edge, modern infrastructure, strong military, and a well-organized society on all levels, with a stabilizing wide-ranging unity within the own borders. Divide-and-rule was the advantage they held 100 and 200 years ago, and it still is today. Teach your children well...
    1
  629. Everything she so succintly describes, is by design. “Shortly, the public will be unable to reason or think for themselves. They’ll only be able to parrot the information they’ve been given on the previous night’s news.” — Zbigniew Brzezinski It's a repeat of the Roman Empire's "bread and circuses"-technique to keep the populations of the empires docile and subservient to the needs of the elites.
    1
  630. It's a tool of a global Washington DC "divide and rule"-strategy, to subvert, insert levers of mistrust and division in opposite systems, and create dissention: the key to world domination. The CIA operates globally in union with a plethora of other "three letter agencies," and Washington DC also uses other international organizations like NATO, or single other states, like "buck catchers" to foster division and wars all over the world.
    1
  631. It's how divide and rule is implemented. Encroach on a rival system. Wait for the showdown war. "Morph" the rival system into a tool for further expansion.
    1
  632. Whoever voted for Von der Leynen?
    1
  633. It's "divide and rule". It's ALWAYS divide and rule if governments defend wrongs against the wishes of its inhabitants. For the "dividers", the resulting division is always good. They can rule over the fear, the discord, moderate the "finger pointers", and manage the "pointed at" alike. The "winners"? It is those who send 3.8 billion $ to fund Israel each year, in Washington DC, almost all of it flowing back to the USA in the form of arms purchases or other lucrative kickbacks. The favorite = favoratism = creation of division. Same for the Ukraine. Most of the funding stays with the true "winners" of division in the USA and their minions of the "collective West" (EU). It's how "divide and rule" works...
    1
  634. @ Yes, the "eternal aid" provision is the creation of dependencies in an exploitive system of gain, rather that "teaching how to fish".
    1
  635.  @garyddlewis3067  Europeans should send the meddling "divide-and-rule" instigators of Washington DC home, create a comprehensive European security agreement (incl. Russia) and then nobody has to waste any money on excessive amounts of weapons.
    1
  636.  @BrendonTristal  Here ... 》 comment that makes sense 《 ty
    1
  637.  @deborahdean8867  Yes, but the "picture" is much bigger than that. Empires create these "land thefts" (migration) as you described it, because it benefits "dissention" in the regions they have an eye on controlling, because lying/stealing contibutes to hatred and violence, which the true POWERS who operate from thousands of miles away, can then rule over. It isn't simply stealing land, it is a political policy of the elites.
    1
  638. It only has to fit the definition. The only element that cannot be proven, is intent, because of the secretive nature of the state. genocide noun the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group. "a campaign of genocide" Similar: racial killing massacre [end of] There is sufficient cause for investigation, based on the dozens of comments made by top Israeli leaders.
    1
  639. ​ @johnsmith1474  Correct. The USA was always set on ruthless expansion. After the defeat of Native Americans, battling down neighbors to get into the favorable "weak neighbors, fish both sides" (Bismarck) position in geopolitics, what followed was simply a respite. The conquest of the world started around 1900. First, they came for the Spanish Empire, but nobody in Europe cared, because they were not Spanish...
    1
  640. INDIA Growing up in South Africa, one is quickly introduced to the concept of "dual loyalties" in the form of a joke or a cartoon: that of the "soutpiel". Every child knew it, and joked about it. I'll leave to the reader to ask a South African friend what that means. In a nutshell, it is the dual loyalty of people living in Africa, with their loyalties divided between Europe and Africa, meaning that their...ahem...the "future" was left dangling in the Atlantic Ocean. Every child in South Africa knew it, but not every child understood it. Granted, it took me a while, and not until I reached the age of reason in my twenties. "SOUTPIEL": A GRAND STRATEGY/GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS Note that first and foremost, the jokers in South Africa actually became a victim of their own misguided logic: whilst the old immigrants were finger pointing at the new British immigrants with mixed loyalties from Great Britain after the 1820s, they were actually of mixed loyalty themselves on another tier. The Boers' hearts might have been beating in Africa, but in their minds they were still better Europeans. Therefore they never managed the close relationships on equal footing, or at eye level, to those they subjected (indigenous black tribes). Then, much later they were overpowered by exactly this same misguided logic they had previously imposed on their neighbours whom they wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule and wealth (divide-and-rule onto and over the weaker local tribes, easily divided using tribalism). Unlike South American empires (Aztecs/Incas), who had not an iota of knowledge of the European Empires and their ability to REACH globally, for the South African strategists there was NO excuse. They should have known what future they themselves should have constructed for Southern Africa, because they had full access to the histories of the lands they originally came from (Europe). The "dividers" of a geographical region are hardly ever open to any suggestions of systemic UNITY/CONCORD, if they themselves GAIN from DIVISION/DISCORD, until they are later divided themselves, and subjected. The story of mankind. Can we blame the indigenous black tribes for not uniting when the first white settlers arrived in their territories? No, because just like the indigenous Native Americans, these individual tribes simply lacked the organisation and technology to observe/analyse beyond their own limited horizons. For the Boers, who HAD this knowledge, their own ideology acted as a block in the own brains. The land borders were shaped in the brains of "superior white man" (sic.), not on the map, which then later backfired. Because of a lack of combined African UNITY, justice, power, and a fair distribution of wealth and land, by ALL inhabitants and FOR all inhabitants (round tables), a bigger "DIVIDER" came along and ruled them all after the Second Boer War... Unlike after the French came to the Cape Colony and the Boers simply "trekked" their way out, when the British Empire came for them, there was nowhere left for the Boers to run to, since they had settled and had been surrounded on all sides by European empires (British Empire, and Portugal/Mozambique). The above can also serve as template for the Levant/Middle East, and all the artificial borders drawn by empires OVER the peoples living there. Just like Southern Africa (region), West Asia had MORE THAN sufficient resources to create a decent lifestyle for ALL the inhabitants, and therefore ask yourself the critical question "Qui Bono?" if there is an "Apartheid"-style division by a few, for the benefit of a few? (Apartheid = divide-and-rule, as top-down implementation) Southern Africa = Between the sea and the sea (Indian/Atlantic) and should have included ALL peoples who lived here. The "barriers" were in the brain, to the detriment of all when the "dividers" came. Arabian Peninsula = Between the sea and the sea (Mediterranean/Indian Oceans) and should have included ALL peoples who lived here. The "barriers" were in the brain, to the detriment of all when the "dividers" came. Historically, who gained from DIVISION? Who would have gained from a fair UNITY in Southern Africa, and on the Arabian Peninsula, when the "empires" came? Surprized that the entire text is headed "INDIA" but doesn't contain a single word related to India? Oh yes, it does. Because it is exactly the same technique a bigger outside empire employed on the Indian subcontinent: the divide-and-rule technique, the most powerful force on the planet. ---------------------------------------------- Now. Look over the horizon. Eurasia. When carrying out a geopolitical analysis, do not make the same mistakes as Africa's black tribes, and the Boers, and Native Americans, and Incas and Aztecs, and the Chinese kingdom during their "Century of Humiliation", and many many more all over the world, who all failed to look past the limited horizons open to them. YOUR "horizons" are given to you by the texts in your own history books, which intend to LIMIT your horizon, not open it. Treaty of Versailles = Divide and rule of and over neighbours (Europe/Eurasia), and the misguided logic they imposed on their neighbours whom the dividers wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule (divide-and-rule onto and over the weakened local systems who "lost the war" and which they wished to create top down). European leaders who did not understand the logic of Chesterton's fence, and destroyed what they did not understand. Who was "let in" and who was "left out" of such agreements/accords? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Chesterton%27s_fence Abrahamic Accords = Divide and rule of and over direct neighbours (Arabian Penisula), and the misguided logic they imposed on their neighbours whom they wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule (divide-and-rule onto and over the weaker local systems). Who was "let in" and who was "left out" of such agreements/accords? The leaders of West Asia are all "soutpiele" as long as they bow down to outside interests and value their own vested interests before the interests of the entire region (oil resources which had turned into US/EU/Swiss assets for a few over the span of 50 years, past the majority of the own peoples). One of the biggest misconceptions of history is the ability of the ideologically/systemically indoctrinated to view themselves as unique, whereas as a general rule their own histories rhyme with other historical events, based on the systemic analysis. The will to keep the own systems APART from their neighbours (divided by ideology and rulings) always backfires, when one is no longer "King of the Mountain" (strategy of power). By the time everything implodes, the rulers/dividers are long gone, having previously brought their own wealth and families to safe havens.
    1
  641. Youtube deleted a previous answer I posted here.
    1
  642. The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant 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 outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent. Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history. Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was peace, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces and walks off wit GAIN, when all the others can be avoided from uniting? Different Empires. Different era. Same games... >>> The people of Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent. Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers... Divide-and-rule. Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games. >>> The people of the Americas, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easy to divide people into "ingroups". In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the USA's power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours. Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER. Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS. Eden was a status quo divided by lies and deceit. Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the two Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war... Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly are two cheeks of the same gold-plated hind which sets out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, is the mirror of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side". 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." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet. And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences. America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism. The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over. THE LINK OF THE WORLD. The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide. Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, proxies, 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? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets and becomes successful it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances. 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 individual 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. It's divide-and-rule today, and it was divide-and-rule 20 years ago, it was divide-and-rule 50 years ago, it was the same strategy 100 years ago, and 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the locals were too weak/divided to unite.
    1
  643. Deception, misinformation and disinformation, censorship and other Edward Barney's-style propaganda techniques will always work, because "...five percent of the people think; ten percent of the people think they think; and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think," to quote Thomas Edison...
    1
  644. Excellent historical essay. The biggest danger to Asia today is that India might slip into the "role" of buck catcher for the USA/collective West. The danger of this should not be underestimated, since there is a historical parallel: after 1900, Imperialist France was used as buck catcher by the offshore powers, also both imperialists naval powers GB/USA, and set up/favored against Imperialist Germany. India is steering a potentially dangerous course.
    1
  645. @Gerd Your essay and observations almost perfectly matches the Bread and Circus technique employed by those in power,onto the powerless "masses"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses ... which allows corporations to do as they please by keeping the masses well-fed and satisfied with cheap food and cheap entertainment. As long as there is no "guilotines moment", the ruling class, the "haves", the "1%-ters", the establishment or upper class, or whatever one might term them, are safe as houses within their geographical advantage which money and influence buys them, never in danger/fear of becoming the victim of their own strategies. Juvenal: “Give them bread and circuses and they will never revolt.” It is a strategy of power which never ages... Marcus Tullius Cicero: "The evil was not in bread and circuses, per se, but in the willingness of the people to sell their rights as free men for full bellies and the excitement of the games which would serve to distract them from the other human hungers which bread and circuses can never appease."
    1
  646.  @neutralitystudies  Hello Pascal, no worries. I'm still in my "information gathering" stage, and everything I read (on multiple levels, i.e. newspaper headlines, political statements, or these YT comments), gives me a better understanding of how "divide and rule" works. Of course, a strategy as old as modern civilization works, because the overwhelming majorities do not understand how it works, allowing it to persist in the background. The focus of this "DaR systemic"-techniques is Asia these days.
    1
  647. POWER. DOESN'T. CARE. Maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy. All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are trapped in a "divide and rule world", and it has been all about PROFITS and CONTROL over the people. Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers... Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible. It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"... Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country? Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting. Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this: - You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections. - You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media. - You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual. - You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way. - You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference. Here is what you can do, easily: 1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours) 2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed 3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
    1
  648. @literatious308  The "interests"-crowd, symbolized by the Blackrock elites, want the resources under the feet of Ukrainians. A tale as old as the Bible. Jacob the smoothe talking slimer and schemer trying to get the natural inheritance by deceiving his brother...
    1
  649. @РафаэльСаркисянц-ъ2т  Yes, agreed. It is an old game, to morph the brains of entire regions of a planet to become "like the empire" and then use these morphed individuals as tools of expansion for the empire in the background. The intention by the empire (Atlanticists) is to deceive these "newly morphed" (Western-, Central-, Eastern Europeans) into doing most of the fighting and bleeding, while accusing the default "outgroup" (Russia, China) of doing the same. Those defending themselves (Russia/China), become the "attackers/imperialists" in the morphed heads of the people who are being deceived. Rome already did this 2000 years ago. It's devide-and-rule/conquer.
    1
  650. Between "around 1900" and "around 2000," nothing has really changed in the concept of imperialist mindset. It has simply morphed and been name-branded new. Now it is the "neocon." Those who intended to use DIVISION to RULE are still the same type of people, only slightly shapeshifted. People are often confused by terminology, rather than looking at the events themselves. RULE by DIVISION. Set people and groups up against each other and then rule over or gain from division and polarization. They hide the strategy by inventing new terms throughout history. A counter-strategy to unravel the narrative favouring the "dividers": Look at the events or actions. Critical question: how does a minority control the narrative of a majority? How does a faraway empire, control a large group of local groups and people? Correct answer, call "them" (outgroup) a potential danger and divide them. The DIVIDED are being sown dissent upon, by the dividers from outside, in slow incremental steps. APARTHEID EMPIRES All historical European global empires, incl. the British Empire, were of course "Apartheid empires" since they had two/three-tier systems as default settings. If anybody thinks old tropes like "justice is blind" or "the law counts equally for all" counts in the real world, then they are in for a rude awakening: it was never about being fair. The divide and rule system is a pyramid. It has always been, and will always be until the various bases unite and dismantle top-down rule. All top down rule systems practiced divide-and-rule as a matter of policy, just like South African systems of power did in Southern Africa, not only inside the own borders, but beyond the own borders. Apart = separate = divide. Divide-and-control/rule. Gain from polarization. To rule/control by division. A globally operating HEGEMONY can likewise play the same divide-and-control/rule games everywhere on the globe and that the borders need never change in order to play these games. Wherever one zooms into, the "game" is exactly the same, only the actors change. They deceive their listeners with word games: borders mean nothing for the "dividers", since they themselves operate across borders, to sow division. Before 1945 the previous hegemonic powers had the clout to practice divide-and-rule as a matter of policy, just like Washington DC systems of power did in the USA, not only inside the own borders, but beyond. To play games, the borders need never change. All it needs is POWER, a set of rules for ordering everybody else around, and a position of impunity from any setbacks. The attitude is then that somebody else can pick up the tab if anything goes wrong, then strut about like the sun shines out of the own you-know-what, and pretend that everybody on the planet owes you something. ------------------------------------------------- Point the finger, at those divided, and blame them for anything that goes wrong. In the background, gain from division. If a region cannot be infiltrated and morphed, or otherwise controlled, divide-and-destroy is implemented. Today, our easily-deceived Western leaders in the self-proclaimed "good West" (not strategists) tell us that there will be peace, as long as everybody adheres to the belief system that "the borders may never change". Yet it is they themselves (strategists), who intend to GAIN from division elsewhere on the planet, using exactly these imposed realities. Any resistance evolving out of the attempts to divide, are simply downplayed or demonized. Everybody who changes the established borders is "evil" (unless of course, it is the own capital cities, or their proxies doing so: then it is "justified" by finger-pointing somewhere else). The own tiered systems propagating "us/them" says so, so it must be "true." Hypocrisy and lying (incl. by omission) is not a moral failure, but a strategy of power. Calling out the immoral, won't change them, since they don't care what you think, nor do they have to care, because they know they have an entire army of "D, S, A" (Henry Kissinger/censored quote) at their command, to send to the trenches while they siphon off the riches in the background... The psychological term for when people accuse others of something they themselves have done or are doing is almost always projection when some form of gain is involved, such as politics. The allegory of "finger pointing, three fingers pointing back" is also spot on, because the "pointing finger" is mostly accompanied by very vocal theatrics, whilst the "three fingers" are kept hidden. The ancient allegory hints at causality, because own previous actions kept quiet, are also the CAUSE of the "pointing finger" the finger-pointer tries to deflect to. It is the same hand "CAUSING" and POINTING. This is not only an allegory, but also a strategy of power which politicians and other systemic gain models use to distract, misinform, obfuscate, or deflect blame: the weakest and therefore the most unworthy form of leadership ("buck passers") thus wiggle and writhe their way into power. Unfortunately weak and pathetic deceivers are usually very common in systems of democracy/capitalism. Obviously, another lesson to be learnt from the allegory is the a debater cannot reference an immoral action by one entity or group, to excuse another immoral action by another entity or group. That would give a neutral observer more information about the finger pointer than about the topic under discussion.* Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of the United States, was not only a politician but also an astute thinker. His insights into human nature are timeless and offer clear clues on how to recognize foolishness and lack of wisdom. Jefferson said that a fool can be identified by the number of mistakes he makes and the number of times he repeats them. 1. They speak without thinking (concept of "false premise" or making claims without supplying evidence, simply accepting that it is "true" because they FEEL so). 2. They ignore criticism (In contrast, Thomas Jefferson emphasized the importance of self-reflection). 3. They pretend to know everything (A wise person realizes how little he actually knows). 4. They blame others (Instead of taking responsibility for their own mistakes, fools always blame others). 5. They act impulsively (Jefferson believed in the power of deliberation and clear thinking before any action). 6. They do not respect other opinions (Intolerance and refusal to understand other perspectives are clear signs of narrow-mindedness). 7. They do not learn from the past (A fool repeats the same mistakes without learning from past experiences. Jefferson reminded that history is a teacher we should heed). Our European leaders are fools. They did not learn from past European mistakes. They judge quickly and ignore the opinions and perspectives of others. Then defend wrong behaviour to protect own egos. They don't take responsibility for their decisions and actions, but "pass the buck" (finger pointing) to others. They blame others, or circumstances. They are convinced of their own infallibility. Look at the jumping jacks that are romping around the capital cities in the USA/collective West. All related to the strategies of power our leaders employ, also via proxy, but then accept no responsibility for. In fact, rather than accepting responsibility, they live the life of supreme luxury, in "gardens", blaming the "jungles" they have the boot on. In case anybody FEELS triggered by the events evolving out of what they cause themselves. Only a fool believes everything a government tells them... Plato's Cave analogy was written FOR you thousands of years ago. It's not about the "other guys".
    1
  651. The biggest spy nations of the world (5 Eyes) will always point the finger when they catch somebody spying. In psychology this is "projection": you project the own behaviour onto others. Or, the biblical "take the splinter from the eyes" of someone else, and ignore the plank in the own eye.
    1
  652.  @dimitri9959  It didn't matter how many complied. What mattered to the state was that if one didn't comply, the individual became "a criminal," and could be persecuted according to the laws that were made. Today, the same can happen to crypto or any other asset at any point.
    1
  653. Well-written, but you are barking up the wrong tree. In a systemic analysis, it is the USA/collective West trying to encircle their rivals, which then respond if they are strong enough. Usually a breakout attempt of sorts, out of the encirclement strategy of the outside powers.
    1
  654.  @DanielMartinez-rt2rn  We must all beware of not becoming the "defenders" of something we don't truly understand. A quick overview of the modus operandi of imperialism, by looking at the history of "Panama" around the year 1900. Imperialism: 1) The imperialist power wants something (say, the Panama Canal in the late-19th century) 2) accuse some other power of being "imperialist" or whatever... (Columbia, the legal owner of the territory) 3) disguise the own systemic greed as "poor people"-argument 4) center of power (corporatism in alliance with Washington DC) supports local "revolutionaries" who want secession 5) pay these resulting "freedom fighters" to request the imperialist power's aid (aka the creation of "the proxy") 6) carve up the sphere of influence into seperate countries 7) go back to 1) 8) get a lot of homegrown "neoimperialist" (fanboys, usually the "sitting in mommy's basement"-variety), to vociferously defend the disguised imperialism, usually by "skewing the timeline of events", or another use of the plethora of deceptive means... Neoimperialism With regards to "Taiwan", according to international law it is a part of China, just like Hawaii or Puerto Rico is a part of the USA. 1) The USA wants something (military bases to encroach on and surround its own rival, which it created 20 years ago as a matter of Washington DC policy) Now, implement "steps 2 through 8". The OP I wrote is along similar lines, aka "Neoimperialism". The USA wants something, which is to militarily surround their own main rival, and they will build up "proxies" to to the heavy fifting or "bloodletting" (strategy/John Mearsheimer") for them, while they stay in the background and finance the bloodshed. The "buck passers" (strategy of the hegemony) then simply disguises every event as "saving the poor people" story.
    1
  655. The discussion topic is too narrow, and can only serve as data to figure out the big picture. Simply a look at a small pixel of the larger image, and therefore too "compartmentalized". Europe lost its top tier position a long time ago, as global leaders because their leaders could not find a suitable balance of power between the states, which was equally acceptable for all. Note that with Versailles and many other bad choices, ALL Europeans lost. WW1 and WW2 was one struggle which roots go back a 1,000 years: the battle for continental supremacy between France and The Holy Roman Empire, with Russia off to one side of that, and Great Britain off to the other. This is how the quote "peace for 20 years" (Foch) should be interpreted. WW1 and WW2 was simply another "30 years war" with the difference being that Atlanticists (the naval powers) stepped in and supported France as the "favored nation" as a proactive divide-and-rule strategy of intended global control and domination. In the end ALL Europeans lost and became subjected to the American Century, whose post-WW2 Truman Doctrine was simply more divide-and-rule, to drive a rift between Europeans. After the Cold War this "rift" was simply "ruled" to be further east, as new frontierlands to systemically convert, and the desirable status quo of "Europeans set up against each other per outside ruling" was moved a few hundred miles eastwards. Read Mackinder (1904), which found its logical continuation with the Truman Doctrine, and Churchill's Iron Curtain.
    1
  656. Superpower behaviour started a looooong time ago... BISMARCK (regional division of the Balkans as regional divide-and-rule), VS. MONROE (as global divide-and-rule) After Europe became "exhausted" from the Napoleonic Wars, the opportunity was exploited in Washington DC for the implementation of GLOBAL DIVIDE-AND-RULE. That reality facilitated the first "superpower"-behaviour... THE MONROE DOCTRINE AS "DIVISION" OF THE ENTIRE WORLD AS GEOPOLITICAL DIVISION OF INTERESTS (DIVIDE-AND-RULE) As can be easily missed in a biased analysis of world history, focused on all the "exciting titbits" like battles and political wrangling, the Monroe Doctrine "divided" the entire world with a "ruling" (similarly, as the "rhyming" Treaty of Tordesillas/Spain/Portugal for the New World before). Powers doing their Weltpolitik which is always "good if WE do it." This Weltpolitik as division originated from Washington DC, and was made without consultation with anybody else, which would remain Washington DC's standing policy from then on. They didn't have to consult, because Europe was "exhausted". Poor little Europeans, always ending up "exhausted," and too stupid to figure out why they are the tools of others, but that is another story... Previously, and analogous to Russia in Eurasia, the USA had used this war mainly fought in Europe and which had exhausted all, to expand its own territorial expansion in North America (N.America as the territorial sphere of influence in the wake of "European exhaustion"/please refer to "like every other history book about the USA"). The Napoleonic Wars were fought globally using various techniques of power (incl. but not limited to military clashes) but the main battlefield was "IN Europe". Here is where the war would be decided. In the period following the Napoleonic Wars, European leaders were simply too weak to protest or do anything about this "global example of divide-and-rule" (Monroe Doctrine), and too divided to unite against it as "single hegemony", and as declared by Washington DC without consultation, and which intended to squeeze Europeans "out" of the Americas in the most hegemonic fashion. Small dependencies of the "current best fwiends" would be honoured for the MOMENT whilst all were still "best fwiends", see "Twump" today, just doing their Weltpolitik, but that is another story.... BISMARCK'S "DIVISION" OF THE BALKANS AS REGIONAL GEOPOLITICAL DIVISION OF INTERESTS (DIVIDE-AND-RULE) No, of course one cannot denounce/criticize Bismarck's use of the "light side" of the force called "divide-and-rule" without then also equally denouncing or criticizing the Monroe Doctrine on the other side of the Atlantic an few years before, for separating the New World per decree, from the Old World. For Europe's sake, Bismarck's suggestion was a good solution to avoid conflicts from the Balkans "spilling over" into Europe, and it worked as long as it was adhered to. Note that in both cases the intentions behind the rulings were purely to avoid hegemonial interests of outside powers. Both "rulings" at least kept other powers out of designated areas as POWERS, as the old hegemony receded in power, leaving the feared "power vacuum" for other forces to fill. In South America the "sick man" retreating was Spain, and in the Balkans it was the Ottoman Empire retreating step-by-step during the 19th century. The nutshell version: such "rulings" squeezed other powers out, to avoid a region becoming a "powder keg" of conflicting interests. In case the division of the Balkans had remained as "divided" into East/West with designated powers as agreed upon (Austria-Hungary = the West/Russia = the East), the powder keg would have had a lot less "powder" because all responsible leaders would have known who the "decider" was, should an issue arise (political-/economic-/religious-/"whatever" of geopolitical magnitude). As the various local minor powers/interest groups/ideologies vied for positions of power and more influence, there was already enough local violence as it was, without outside powers stepping in trying to gain from the "revolutionary spirit," as the Ottoman Empire weakened and withdrew from the "chessboard". (Note that this cannot be compared to the "dark side" of the force called divide-and-rule in which powers use the technique for "offensive" purposes, far away from home, without their own security concerns of the homelands being a factor. A few thousand miles away from home, is always purely unfettered greed of systemic expansion, which is set apart from the intentions to secure the own "backyards" in order to avoid wars here.) Berlin playing divide-and-rule with the Balkans, can NOT be compared with London playing divide-and-rule in India for example. London's security, was NOT "guarded" in India, in the same way that the security of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia and the multiple millions of people living here, were effected by events in the Balkans (own bordering region). Let's not compare apples with oranges for the sake of a nice story (fallacy in reasoning). This template is near enough in order to serve as a template and to explain principles of power. This aforementioned was the same as in South America during the 19th century as Spain retreated and minor interest groups vied for political power/influence to fill the vacuum. Had European imperialists entered the fray, into the "revolutionary spirit" in South America, the effects would have been a lot worse, as these powers would have searched for "buck catchers", for proxies, and for ways to enter own systems of power/control, or corporate interests, and armed rival powers. The lesson of history is simple. Replace a "power vacuum" with a new order asap. If not the entire region could collapse into turmoil, terror, gang violence, racketeers, all armed and funded by OUTSIDERS and neighbouring minor powers, as seen in Iraq post-2003, spilling over into Syria, and as seen in Eastern Europe after Brest-Litovsk was rescinded (Nov 1918). Remove the hegemony, and the region usually spirals downwards into bloodshed and turmoil. The more resources and potential systemic gain promised/desired, the more violent the interactions. THE BALKANS AND THE LATER "WW1", ARISING "OUT OF" A "THIRD BALKAN WAR" What changed after the turn of the century (around 1900)? What happened after 1903 in the Balkans, was exactly the same thing Russia was complaining about after the 1990s, only the "shoe was in the other foot." The use of a proxy (Serbia) to encroach on, and slowly encircle the rival Austria-Hungary was (according to our "common consensus") perfectly OK when Russia did it in slow incremental steps starting around the year 1900, hoping nobody would notice, and at least tacitly supported by her new-found "best friends" (GB/1907 and France 1894). After the 1890s a new country (Serbia) was morphed and became the proxy for an outside power (Russia), searching for access to the Balkans and beyond, the "warm water port"-narrative. After the 1990s a new country (Ukraine) was morphed and became the proxy for the outside powers (USA/EU/NATO), searching for access into Eastern Europe, via the Black Sea region. Near enough to be good enough as comparison with regards to why such encroachment results in alarm in the powers encroached on, and at some point there will be a REaction to the encroachment/encirclement. Before 1914: Russia had to be "let into the Balkans" (geopolitics/grand strategy as "fwiend") with promises and accord, or "nodding off" the advance. Post-1990s: Russia had to be squeezed out of the Balkans, because said "promises/accords" were no longer useful to the "deciders" who would escalate to squeeze Russia out. Friends one day, enemies the next, friends one day, enemies the next, friends one day... DIVIDE-AND-RULE, as explained by Thomas Jefferson... In the effort to remain the global hegemon, new countries like the Ukraine, or the newly-released new countries (from the old order) were employed as pawns/knights/bishops/rooks/queens (rising rank of "worth") to encroach on and encircle Russia in a grand strategic encirclement. Of course the people, ideologies were different due to the different locations on the map, different religions, political forces, but on the systems/strategies-tier was the same thing. Slowly and systemically creeping into a designated sphere of influence, one step at a time, cheered along by a selection of folks back home, and "perfectly ok if done to somebody else." TODAY WITHIN THE MONROE DOCTRINE'S REACH Now see what happens if there is a "feeling" that others are taking something away from the own systems, then the "common consensus" is an oh-so-miraculously 180-degree about turn, and the little screamers (see Trump & Fanclub these days about the Panama Canal), and power players whine like babies, crying like children about nasty "Chy-naaah" trying to take away their beautiful Panama Canal. They claim not to know what a sphere of influence is. The great pretenders, pretending to be fighting against something while actually supporting what they claim to be "fighting." Such great admirers of freedom, until someone tries to take something away from them (allegation) and it is done to the own systems. (Note in this case, China is NOT trying to "take away" the hegemonial power's political influence, but it is only about a private corporate managing of the ports, a minor issue riled up "molehill to mountain"-style. Should Russia, or China, ever try to take over what the USA considers "theirs" per Monroe Doctrine there will be war, regardless of what the local people who live in Central America desire, and totally disregarding their lives and health. POT. KETTLE. BLACK.)
    1
  657. The objective of politics/historicity is to factor in YOUR emotions, into your analysis of daily events today, and the historicity of the past, so that individuals start "cheering" for imperialism, without even being aware of the fact that you are "cheering for" imperialist strategies of POWER. Imperialist strategies have hardly changed these past 200-300 years, despite all the new laws, rules, regulations, and good intentions by the "doves" of politics and international relations, or in the private sector (NGOs). These actors are set up against the "hawks" of POWER: also very active in politics and international relations, or in the private sector (NGOs) The key objective by power players is to mask the POWER of the "divide and rule"-strategy ("systems/strategy"-tier of analysis). It works the same way it has always worked ever since the dawn of modern civilizations. While the strategists/politicians/ruling elites focus on STRATEGY, they attempt to appeal to your LIMBIC SYSTEM, the most primitive part of your brain. (§§§§§footnote) §§§footnote How these "headless elites" unite in order to form temporary usefull alliances... §§§§footnote Definition of imperialism according to Wiki. Other definitions are all similar. "Imperialism is the practice, theory or attitude of maintaining or extending power over foreign nations, particularly through expansionism, employing not only hard power (military and economic power) but also soft power (diplomatic power and cultural imperialism)." §§§§§footnote Britannica, the Limbic System: "The limbic system is a group of structures in the brain that governs emotions, motivation, olfaction, and behavior. It is also involved in the formation of long-term memory." Very useful for playing "divide and rule" on unsuspecting souls, who just wish to mind their own business. Otherwise known as the "Appeal to Emotion (Cognitive bias)," if other means in convincing individuals are lacking, or faltering... Other mass-psychological phenomena, like "social proof" then influence how "the masses" react. Wiki: "Social proof (or informational social influence) is a psychological and social phenomenon wherein people copy the actions of others in choosing how to behave in a given situation." Or, everybody just does and says what everybody else does and says, because... "if everybody does and says something", it MUST be right.
    1
  658. I had to remove the links I added to the above post, in order to be able to post it.
    1
  659. Why ALL Semites are a tool of the actual "dividing POWER", please see the essay at the top of the comments section, which you can read if you wish, if you choose "latest comments first" (it should be near the top) rgds
    1
  660.  @befeleme  Since I know about the power of the "appeal to emotion", I intentionally cut off my own Limbic System during analyses, as you can view in all my comments here. Why? It is the only way to beat the top down political "divide and rule"-strategy of the elites. Do you know who (amongst others) came up with this "bottom up"-approach to overcome the top down "divide and rule"-technique? Jesus Christ, the person, about 2,000 years ago, as the strategist. So, no. My Limbic System does not influence how I personally analyse situations, specifically highly emotionally laden events during crises and wars.
    1
  661.  @befeleme  That's not what I said. That is what you just said, which is "putting words in the mouth" of another, not a very scientific way of debating. It is known scientifically as "Strawmanning," which you can search for in a book. In short, Strawmanning means "interpreting" the words of another in such a way that the theory can be "easily defeated". However, you did not "defeat" what I wrote. You merely wrote something different.
    1
  662.  @befeleme  OK, I filed it under "J" for "joke" 🙂 Back to the "divide and rule"-technique, and serious business 🙂 The strategy of "divide and rule/conquer" is the force to influence billions of minds, and is strategy acting in conjunction with human nature (particularly, emotions). It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: that is wrong. It is misunderstood, because it is as much a strategy of "top down" measures of power players, as it is of "bottom up" failure (human nature). The "dissention" is created by fans defending the actions of their own "favorites" (individuals/systems/"-isms"/etc.), and you can study it here, in this comments section, or in politics, in debates, or on campusses, in fact: everywhere. Human beings are "dividing" themselves, because unlike their elites who steer this "divide and rule" top down, the "bottom" cannot focus on a single guideline. That was the intention of my "Jesus" reference. Yes, I know: even his very existence as a human being is not without controversy. It does not matter: in the systemic analysis, it is simply about "systems" and the strategies these systems used. Dividing the opposition is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling". Every system which does not specifically forbid the divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it. No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy". One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is. Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use the technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you and me as commoners will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. All power players regardless of the system of gain in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves... Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter the shark tank of the "divide and rule"-system. The favorite = favoratism = the proxy. Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish. All that is needed is a position of superior power.
    1
  663.  @befeleme  I employ my limbic system in daily, common events, such as meeting friends or going to the beach. There it is fully engaged. Why should I "reconnect" it when political power players wish to appeal to my emotions while they are driving their agendas as "strategies" in the background?
    1
  664.  @befeleme  Why do you wish to become distracted by ancillary details, like your assumptions about my person? (aka the "ad hominem"). Why don't you wish to focus on the POWER of the "divide and rule"-strategy as most probable oversystemic policy by Washington DC? Does it make you uncomfortable, not being in a position to steer the debate towards the "ad hominem" or other forms of deflection? Oh, and BTW. I already know perfectly well how you are going to respond to this comment. I've even already addressed it in the above longer comment as "defending favorites". Because I've been in hundreds of debates during which a sudden realisation in my opposite has had a deep impact, resulting in psychological deflection, or the state of "denial".
    1
  665.  @befeleme  Ah, the "denial phase" of every debate. Who wields the power in the ME and is employing the "divide and rule"-technique on BOTH "sides"?
    1
  666.  @horasefu1438  Did you know that the term "Apartheid" is an artificial creation to mask the "divide and rule"-strategy of POWER?
    1
  667. ​ @osmanismail943  The OP didn't "make the argument" but is countering the narrative of "J. have always lived there" apologists for crimes and land theft.
    1
  668. Divide-and-rule.
    1
  669.  @garyddlewis3067  Youthinks correctly. If it is controversial, it is divide-and-rule, which is why I emphasize divide-and-rule constantly. See? You already noticed. Meaning that the Anglosaxon mind trickery of "constantly repeating stories to affirm the stories as a brain pattern into the heads of individuals" is already being challenged, because here's what: you remember the counter argument to the word trickery of the MSM and MIMAC ingroup psychological tricks. There is hope for you yet, my young padawan. 😉👍
    1
  670. Why do you think she hates Arabs?
    1
  671. Yes, even history (the pro-Western, or "Anglosaxon" historical narrative), or currency (US dollar hegemony) is "weaponized" in narratives which are very pleasing to the ears of the US/collective West citizenry. It's what empires do to browbeat or subject the "inferior" (sic.) cultures they wish to subject.
    1
  672. Cause and effect. Who went into whose homelands 100 years ago? Hmmmmm?? Hamas, or the Hothis, just like every single "terrorist" organisation ever, at any point in history ever, in any geographical location ever, by any religion ever, are always an effect of oppression. The USA/collective West is "classifying" the terrorists they created themselves with own previous political actions, as terrorists... Terrorism/Freedom fighting (POV) is always an effect not a cause. If you live in the west, then you (personally), or your parents, grandparents or previous generations have never ever ever fought anybody your own leaders have not personally set you up against.
    1
  673. Putin and Moscow have been offering a new form of European cooperation in the form of a *comprehensive European security agreement" at least since 2007, and repeated it multiple times. Instead our own European leaders, bowing down to Washington DC's policy, set themselves up for disaster. In parallel they built up the Ukraine to catch the brunt of a potential Russian "answer."
    1
  674. The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail. The faster the rest of the world realizes this, the better. Washington DC power mongers employ the divide and rule technique of power. In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Europe was divided, with a ruling. This strategy is often misunderstood, in narratives composed mostly of "being friends" or "being rivals/enemies", even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. Washington DC used the same techniques (favouritism of specific "buck-catchers") that it had previously used to overpower European states and empires. The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself. ------------------------------------- "The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015 ------------------------------------- Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA. That includes this current war being incrementally escalated by the West, in the Ukraine. This war was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia). Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power. In a nutshell: Implement and fund delusional propaganda games. Nothing of substance, with the implemented events often the exact opposite of the loudly proclaimed "values". In the background, keep other systems either down or out of the own systems of gain and luxury life, on ALL tiers, often by force, coercion, or at gunpoint, if it cannot be bought or corrupted, all accompanied by continuous flurry of words without meaning, spread by the exact systems which gain from keeping everything the way it is (a "divide and rule"-setup of the world). That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power). It is to create confusion, which can be exploited. The intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia (which incl. the ME), in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite. Weak leaders lead to hard times in the form of endless crises and wars. Deceitful leaders lead to constant dissent, which mainly benefit those powers which can stay out of mass conflagrations like war, or step in last to gain from the mutual exhaustion of all the others. Outside powers can 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 desirable disparity continues, so that "gain" can be siphoned off. It is not "accidental", it is a strategy. 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).
    1
  675. Palestine, in any borders, was never intended to become a "country." That was always a myth, chanted by the West (politicians, MSM, etc.). That was Israeli policy right from the start, when founding fathers clearly voiced their discomfort with being a minority within any borders (Quote Ben Gurion, that he wanted a "60% Jewish majority"). How? That is also clear if one reads the actual words and doctrines of Israel's founding fathers, who had the support of the outside empires. - war - etnic cleansing - the occupation of, or domination over, "Apartheid-like Bantustans"
    1
  676.  @FAAMS1  Of course. Your position is that the collective West is "forced" to "respond" to the political trouble and global problems they caused in the first place. In good ol' imperialist fashion. Imperialists are again, after a short break, "organizing" their "violence" as the imperialistic aim and goal. To attain the rule (de jure) and domination (de facto) of the own systems OVER other independent systems which were in any particular place in the world first (aka a given status quo on the timeline of history). "The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do." Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    1
  677.  @peterhixon371  Yes, the "de-industrialisation" of the entire Western Europe will commence thus: from now on "means" will be afforded to the direct "encirclers" of Russia and China. These "means" (military/technological/political/propaganda/financial/raw materials/etc.) will be managed in order to allow the "encirclers" or "buck catchers" as being Poland, the Ukraine, Finnland and the Baltic States (John Mearsheimer's theory) to grow at the expense of Western Europe's established powers (Germany/France/etc.). Weak Western European leaders, too afraid to speak out for fear of being called a "next Napoleon" or the "next Hitler" who "wants to rule the world" (lol), will be complicit in this set-up of "passing the buck" to Eastern Europe, at the expense of their own populations, who will lose their jobs.
    1
  678. This sounds good...on paper. Realism: Who is going to enforce it, even if it is written down and signed by the world's majority? The hegemonic empire and its best buddies will simply laugh it off and create their own "new rules" (aka the "rules based order: we rule = we order you around).
    1
  679. Advocates defending their systemic greed, trying to hide behind "good deeds," are usually easily exposed: they utter fallacies like "defending (superior) Western values", whereas in reality all they are doing is defending the dividers, who operate and instigate from superior positions of power. They think reality disappears if they simply do not address it. Their own inbuilt bias means they are defending greed in the form of "50% of the world's wealth for us" (to quote US strategist Kennan), because what they don't realize is that they were born into a belief system. The main reason why that belief system persisted, was because of the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION or POWER. Nothing else. This isn't an fallacy in reasoning, or a false premise, or syllogism. Overwhelmingly, people who are born into the belief system capitalism, will perceive it to be god's gift to mankind. Overwhelmingly, people who are born into the belief system corporatism, will perceive it to be god's gift to mankind. Overwhelmingly, people who are born into the belief system democracy, will perceive it to be god's gift to mankind. All belief systems, mainly persists because advocates are born into the belief system (observation) or have been coddled into believing in it being superior as they grew up. They are defending "greed" in the form of "50% for us" (or variations of that), for the minority, and that this minority of the world which is based in the USA or collective West, 12% of the world, has the right to rule over the rest of the world, by division. Greed can be proven to be the MOTIVATION of the top tiers, even if not necessarily by all who live in such systems, and it can be corroborated by observation.
    1
  680. Peter Hitchens called Great Britain "America's poodle." Great Britain has stopped being "great" a long time ago, and it's up to great Britons, the people, to take their country back.
    1
  681. Are you a citizen of the world, and wish to contribute a small share to end the grip the global elites have on the narrative of history? Are you American, or European? Do you wish to bring the boys back home, from the multitude of military bases around the world, just like so many of your fellow citizens? Just remember this: - You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections. - You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media. - You are not going to achieve much by debating on any platform, real or virtual. - You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way. - You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference. Why do we know this? Because good people have been voting, and posting, and debating, and using their freedom of speech, and protesting for hundreds of years, but the grip the elites have on the plebs has NEVER changed. Here is what you can do, easily: 1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours) 2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed 3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting all international big brands. Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small local companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever and whenever possible. It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get side-lined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone," or "but, but, but...your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be perfect... Methodology: JDI and make it a long term lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk trend, because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate interests. Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small local companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country? Do you wish to fight meddling globalist empires? If those who have the money use their competitive advantages to spread lies and misdirection via the MSM, we must use our numbers to spread the truth of what happened. Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influential GLOBAL ELITES only REALLY start "caring" (sic.) when their pockets start hurting. 👍👋
    1
  682. Israel is just one of 800 "unsinkable aircraft carriers" all over the globe. An extension of US power to the detriment of the local populations, because it's the age-old "divide and rule"-technique, which uses chosen people all over the globe, who are set up as proxies to fight for American interests....
    1
  683. "Neocons" (per definition) are not a new phenomena. They are simply warmongers, packed into a different "modern sounding"-euphimism, describing how the imperialist mindset has always ticked... All playboy empires who fear long-term binding alliances, which are mutually beneficial, eventually paint themselves into a corner at that point in time their "allure" as the "playboy" fades away... For London, and the British Empire, this was 1945. Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk (1851–1914), an Austrian economist, observed that decisions made with small time perspectives can have a seductive quality: "It occurs frequently, I believe, that a person is faced with a choice between a present and a future satisfaction or dissatisfaction and that he decides in favor of lesser present pleasure even though he knows perfectly well, and is even explicitly aware at the moment he makes his choice, that the future disadvantage is the greater and that therefore his well-being, on the whole, suffers by reason of his choice. The "playboy" squanders his whole month's allowance in the first few days on frivolous dissipation. How clearly he anticipates his later embarrassment and deprivation! And yet he is unable to resist the temptations of the moment." [wiki] Long term stability in Europe was "sacrificed" for short-term gain: the story of the British Empire, and their "London schemers" (see below comments section for the suitably evidence, from different periods on the timeline). While London had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE it could "hop around" onto suitors, "getting some" over here, and "getting some" over there, playing out these suitors against each other. Sufficient evidence is provided in the below comments section, so no "conspiwacy theowy"-insinuations or even (my personal favorites) "I bet you support dictators", or "boohoo you hate my puwe little empire" (ROFL). No, I do not love, nor do I hate: I analyse, so no "this is just a false premise"-allegations please :-) Note, that this thread contains the "1% of history which counts", which will not necessarily match up with the stories you are used to hearing, and which you like to listen to... Up to WW2, London played out the already divided peoples of Europe (and their ambitious leaders) AGAINST each other, so that they could sit on the fence and only have to (mainly) fund the Royal Navy and their specialized colonial armies, for own gain, which was funneled to the very top: London. After 1945, and without London having a say in matters (§§§footnote), their "fwiends" in Washington DC declared their "old fwiends" (commies) as "new enemies", and the old setup of the continent as had been historically overwhelmingly influenced by London, was replaced by a new setup for *Europe (which incl.London and the British Empire,* from the standpoint of the "new lords" of the world in Washington DC). Did you spot "what actually happened"? The key words have been highlighted, in order to ease the conclusion for you a bit... "Non scolae, sed vitae discimus" means that we should study for life, not for the lecture hall. As that old saying goes: as you sow, so shall you reap. London sowed division while they had the power to do so, and in the end they bacame the "tool" of another divider (Washington DC), who now had the sole GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE (§§§§footnote). See what happens if you're "playboy" who abhors "binding marriages"? You end up with syph ....oh, never mind... (and, "no", that allegation cannot be "thrown back, hot potato style"-at Berlin, because as the below essays reveal, Berlin actually DID try to create a global balance of power but had their efforts torpedoed every time, by the own neighbors, or by London and Washington DC who "employed" these neighbors as "buck catchers", steering/managing/moderating these against each other, for the own systemic gain aka "a divided continent/Europe" aka "perspective"). §§§Footnote Note that when Churchill made his "Iron Curtain" speech (1946), that he was no longer IN POWER in London, and that the new left-leaning London power players would have looooved to have Moscow as a continental "global balancing tool", and a share of the markets/political influence in Europe (Percentages Agreement) in order to balance out the USA's power. Washington DC stated "sowwie, no more London games", and declared communism as the "new rival/enemy" of all, depriving London of this potential to "hop around". Washington DC declared this, whether these "mutually exhausted masses" agreed or not, and even London and Brits as "pwoud winners" had no other choice but to sink enourmous amounts of Pounds Stirling on a "continental occupying army", depleting what would otherwise have been diverted to the Royal Navy and small specialized colonial armies (historical observaion)... An "occupying army" on the continent, was something which London had always wanted to avoid, by playing out "sytems" and their taxpayers against each other, and now (1947) their "best fwiend's" new doctrine (Truman Doctrine) left London no other choice but to "fight commies" all over their waning "Empire", as a useful tool for the American Century... It was no longer London creating the "default rivals/enemies", for the potential of "own gain", but Washington DC. §§§§Footnote The term geographical advantage will be defined thus: The advantage in power afforded to a system by a geographical distance from rival powers, in combination with parallel factors like an advanced political system with entrenched institutions, wide-ranging trade- and financial system, high population density, a skilled and highly educated work force, favorable climate, abundant raw materials or safe access to these, high level of industrialization, a technological edge, modern infrastructure, strong military, and a well-organized society on all levels, with a stabilizing wide-ranging unity within the own borders.
    1
  684. Those who systemically gain under all outcomes, the "Blackrock"-class, don't care about the adverse effects of their strategic planning for individuals. They'll pluck the Ukraine and present it like a stuffed Christmas turkey, as another "Western success story" (like South Korea, or the Cold War "West" Germany) regardless of how many suffer and are displaced: it is the history of divide-and-rule.
    1
  685. If you have to ask, no explanation will satisfy you ... 😊
    1
  686.  @katong1953  I can see 5 of your comments here.
    1
  687. Today, Washington DC/USA intends to keep its role as "alpha" of the world (just like London/GB did "around 1900"), gained from European empires after WW2. There is even an "insider joke" about NATO, which is that it intends to "keep Germany down, and Russia out". Effect: Washington DC/USA stays the master of European affairs. NATO is now just another tool in the toolbox of "divide and conquer", going back all the way to the 18th century, when the USA was first established. European powers failed to morph NATO into a more suitable system following the end of the Cold War "around the year 2000". A system including Russia and all post-Warsaw Pact nations equally, in a comprehensive security agreement. Note always: What did not happen. Of course a comprehensive security agreement without ...ahem...."parallel tweaties", and a "morphed NATO" into a strong arm of international law = power to actually follow up with punch if "the law" is broken. A new system under which laws, codified by the international community, actually formed a basis of cooperation, not "muh interests you know..." US leaders realized that the key to their own superiority lay in dividing Europeans any which way they could (note, "Europe" is a geographical term, and includes Russia). Sowing dissent. The "freedom and democracy"-argument, backed up by coffers filled to the brim with "slush fund" money... Sow dissent. Irrelevant of whether the actors come with good intentions, or are even aware of what they are ultimately doing: Divide and Rule/Conquer, for a different system. There is a long history... "In Holland, a bourgeois democratic revolution had been defeated and its leaders, who had been instructed in the American Revolution by John Adams, were cruelly suppressed or driven into exile by the Stadtholder, William V, Prince of Orange, in league with the old oligarchs and with the intervention of Britain and Prussia. Adams and Jefferson agonized for the Dutch Patriots, but felt that they had been betrayed by their own excesses as well as by their Bourbon ally. The fact that France, pledged to the Patriots, had not lifted a finger in their support offered a melancholy lesson for the United States..." (from ugapress manifoldapp) Who doth even recognize the "freedom and democracy"-argument here? Irrelevant of intentions, it fits the definition of "sowing dissent" in an existing "system". Irrelevant of whether the reader has any personal preferences: the actions fit words, and words have definitions, which are a strategy. Divide others, to avoid unity. Of course, at this early stage the USA had no way to implement "rule" in any form. A divided Europe suited Washington DC just fine, because should Europe ever unite, it could pose an existential threat to the new USA... The more division in Europe, the better. Support whatever divides. Oppose whatever unites. For the own side: the more unity in North America, the better. The "rule"-part over Europe would have to wait... And in North America, other...ahem..."systems" would have to go too (American Civil War, all about "poor slaves" we are told...) So much for the New World. In the leadup to WW1, London thought they were clever, and that they could gain by dividing everybody else in Europe. "Divide and rule/conquer": note that "rule" has different meanings, and one meaning of the word is simply to "dictate terms" to others, based on an advantage in power. To make it clear, London never intended "direct rule" over any continental country or adversary, because they were too weak for that, but rather to divide continental powers and thereby gain the advantage of dictating terms in case of negotiations, crisis, or wars. What "the lords" didn't seem to notice, was that while they were "ruling" over the continent, based on a geographical advantage, somebody else was playing the same game with them. It was Washington DC, playing "divide and conquer/rule" with Europe, and to the leaders here, GB was simply a part of "Europe" (geographical entity). There are two ways to conquer people: one is by war, the other by debt, which is exactly what Washington DC did. After a few hundred years, the game had simply been flipped 180 degrees. Around 1900 there were "two systems" in Europe: one "librul" (lol), one "conservative"... The "dividers and rulers" could play to their heart's content... And around 2000 "history rhymed", and nobody noticed...
    1
  688. Yes. Because the entire function of "money" is to control the resources. Those who control the flow of money (which is "printable"), control the resources (not printable, but limited). The systems with a lot of money (hedge funds, banks, governments, etc.) have a lot of access to the world's resources Little money = little access to resources The tax system? That is just divide and rule system. Set the people up against each other in an elaborate scheme of favoratism...
    1
  689. @Michael Bartlett Yes, US leaders have surfed the wave of sympathy towards the USA after WW2 to its end, and made the most of the fact that most of the world was thoroughly destroyed in 1945. It is time for a new set of leaders but, as you've stated too many citizens are deeply divided, and that is "per wish" of the elites. George Carlin has a wonderful skit here on YT if you search for "George Carlin, divide and rule". Around the same time, Carl Sagan also made his now-famous prophecy about the "dumbing down of America". What these great philosophers and thinkers expose though is true of the entire western world, not only the USA. Personally I'm deeply disappointed by the course our leaders steered after the collapse of the Soviet Union, post-1990s. The opportunity to create a better planet was wasted by (mostly) greed, and the will of a very few to rule and dominate.
    1
  690. These forces operating from the rimland USA, using local proxies from within Europe, use and abuse human beings as... - walls and barriers - as proxies for the own gain - as tools (instruments of power) - as potential "staging areas" for future own use - as "extensions" of the own power (or increased "reach" for the imperialist power) Just remember, it is the "acme of professionalism," to quote Gen. Keith Kellogg (Ret.) to set up Europeans/Eurasians against each other, to amplify all already divisions, and to ensure that it stays that way.
    1
  691. Divide-and-rule.
    1
  692. If you live in the "global South", do not relax yet, or celebrate any assumed victories of creating more unity. The USA/collective West have one more ace up their sleeve. Capturing the hearts and minds of the (mainly) young, rebellious, and easily-influenced, is a long-term goal of what W.T. Stead set out to do as the "Americanization of the World" (book) on all tiers: ideology, food, industrial products, movies, language, etc. Of course, what he didn't mention back then almost a hundred years ago when this global strategy started, was that this was in effect an old Roman-era strategy of power: to morph the conquered, to become "like Rome." Fill the bellies of the global masses ("Bread") and distract them with entertainment ("Circuses"), and then turn them into the tools of the empire. Beware of the divide-and-rule strategy. It gave whites ("Europeans") the basis of the power in the past, and they still employ it systemically today, on multiple tiers, and the BASIS of their POWER was the ability to keep all the other states/countries/races in the world "down" in power, by setting them up against each other, to a point of warring each other. The advantage in power afforded to a system by a geographical distance from rival powers, in combination with parallel factors like an advanced political system with entrenched institutions, wide-ranging trade- and financial system, high population density, a skilled and highly educated work force, favorable climate, abundant raw materials or safe access to these, high level of industrialization, a technological edge, modern infrastructure, strong military, and a well-organized society on all levels, with a stabilizing wide-ranging unity within the own borders. Divide-and-rule was the advantage they thought they held 100 and 200 years ago, and they think it still is today. There can be only 1 "winner". The others are the systemic "cannon fodder" for the gain of the few "buck passers". Democratic systems of course offer the eternal opportunity for eternal "passing the buck": nobody ever did anything wrong (sic./apologia), nobody ever decided anything bad (sic./apologia), everybody can always simply point the finger (reality in the "superior West"), everywhere else. The perfect systems for all kinds of cowards, slimeballs, profiteers, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and finger-pointers... Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power (in stages after 1890), in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) and their "buck-catchers", nodded off by the "buck passers" which hold the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER. Humdeedum some time passes. By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1... That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around. The global elites will draft YOUR daughter, before they send their own sons to the warzones they have created for their own systemic gains. The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging ...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbours, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed right through to today. Whatever... Guess who "wins"? The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names. During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand). The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction (MIRVs carrying nukes) as it was around the year 1945. It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore.
    1
  693. The British Empire was not only forced to "divide and quit" India as hegemonial power in 1947, but also the continent of Europe in 1945. Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power... By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany] In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. It was a policy. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs) Even today, one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world". There are still some 15 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia." Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I." EPISODE I: From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one." There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend. 1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail... EPISODE V: "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise." [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had the global influence of the Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), 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, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets. No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire. Now, fill in the blanks. EPISODES II THRU IV... Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®) Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere. After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games. All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
    1
  694. The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a "bark" by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War). Moscow was tacidly nodding off the observed reality, without too much interverence at this point in time, since gaining full spectrum domination in Eastern Europe was more important at the time. Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, they are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent. Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust... Create favorites: favoratism... Point the finger, everywhere else... Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... 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-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? §§§footnote The concept of the "straight out lie" is related to a variety of other terms within the spectrum of "political techniques," commonly defined as "strategic ambiguity;" and/or incl. such concepts as "lying by omitting," misdirection, misconstrued, spinning, framing, all either intentionally, or sometimes unintentionally.
    1
  695. Yes, I get dozens of my comments removed daily. They contain "trigger" words, and bots seemingly "hunt" such comments. Trying to mask such "trigger" words by misspelling, or disguising them, are becoming more and more ineffective.
    1
  696. Jesus said "love your neighbor". The antidote for outsiders use of divide-and-rule/conquer of a region. The outsider jumps onto the problem or hatred, chooses a "side". and can instigate or leverage the issues to own advantages.
    1
  697. This all "started" around the turn of the century. No not this century. The previous one: around 1900.
    1
  698. Of course they will. Ideologues don't like definitions. They prefer to create new words in order to hide their imperialism.
    1
  699. The accusation that another state wants "division" of the world is always psychological projection: the natural "urge" to accuse others of what one is systemically doing oneself. The biggest "dividers" of the world are the USA/collective West.
    1
  700. Awww...spot the imperialist... Cute. The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail. The faster the rest of the world realizes this, the better. Washington DC power mongers employ the divide and rule technique of power. In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Europe was divided, with a ruling. This strategy is often misunderstood, in narratives composed mostly of "being friends" or "being rivals/enemies", even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. Washington DC used the same techniques (favouritism of specific "buck-catchers") that it had previously used to overpower European states and empires. The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself. ------------------------------------- "The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015 ------------------------------------- Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA. That includes this current war being incrementally escalated by the West, in the Ukraine. This war was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia). Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power. In a nutshell: Implement and fund delusional propaganda games. Nothing of substance, with the implemented events often the exact opposite of the loudly proclaimed "values". In the background, keep other systems either down or out of the own systems of gain and luxury life, on ALL tiers, often by force, coercion, or at gunpoint, if it cannot be bought or corrupted, all accompanied by continuous flurry of words without meaning, spread by the exact systems which gain from keeping everything the way it is (a "divide and rule"-setup of the world). That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power). It is to create confusion, which can be exploited. The intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia (which incl. the ME), in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite. Weak leaders lead to hard times in the form of endless crises and wars. Deceitful leaders lead to constant dissent, which mainly benefit those powers which can stay out of mass conflagrations like war, or step in last to gain from the mutual exhaustion of all the others. Outside powers can 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 desirable disparity continues, so that "gain" can be siphoned off. 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).
    1
  701. The "biggest loser" of the systemic conflagrations that were "WW1" and "WW2" was the great divider/grand encircler London/British Empire. Around the year 1900 its lords set out to encircle (by proxy) its biggest contester: Germany. HOW TO LOSE YOUR EMPIRE: 2024 VERSION Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all history books. Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Ever since the establishment of their Empire, London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." (From a primary source) In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. This had nothing to do with "Germany". Before that, it was France. London's fatal mistake was snuggling up to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the British Empire. This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address issues as they rose. The two powers started nodding off each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or taken under duress or outside pressure, or otherwise, are fallacies. From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I." Logic? Reason? If you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). EPISODE I: 1901: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races (edit: the term "races" was not used the same way it is today) becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world." SOURCE: "ROYAL PAINS, WILHELM II, EDWARD VII AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910." There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what story we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies (ALL MORE THAN ADEQUATELY ELABORATED in the below comments section) called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. EPISODES II thru IV: Lotsa other stuff happening. EPISODE V: If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centered imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens: "What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003. Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover... No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire. If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power. When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most? Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER. After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided". The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative. "Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl... London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century. After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A Big Three to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games. All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died. They preached Darwinism, and succumbed to it. The urge to deflect blame for the own actions (encirclement strategy) which backfired leading to the end of the British Empire is human nature. The reality is that lower tiers don't "win" anything (gain) in wars. The higher systemic tiers "win" at the expense of the masses. The end result is then always the same. 99% lose, and the tops of the pyramids of power (industrial, financial, political tiers) "win" bigtime. If I were the biggest Dunning-Kruger Medal of Honor recipients in history, I too, would put up a stiff resistance, with deflection, framing, and spinning the "nice story"... The biggest "buck-catchers" the world had ever known. Fighting so others gain at their expense. Trying to dig a hole for their neighbors, and fell into it last. British Empire: Gone with the wind...Lost to the American Century. It is said that "No empire lasts forever", and this is specifically true for the narcissistic ones. Fell into the pond, like Narcissus.
    1
  702. Israel is not a democracy.
    1
  703. Spreading fear is a subset of a divide-and-rule strategy.
    1
  704. You are using a false premise, easily spotted...
    1
  705. The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, they are ALL tools. 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... 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-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
    1
  706.  @constantquestioning_000  Thank you for reading. rgds
    1
  707. The world is global Apartheid, with a two-tier "us/them" system of everything: from concepts such as "wealth" to "justice" and "CONTROL", everything can be vetoed by those who hold the true power. By golly, who would've have ever guessed that a REGIONAL HEGEMONY can play their divide-and-rule games (aka "Apartheid") in a region of the world which was Southern Africa constituted as being South Africa, Rhodesia, Namibia (own sphere of direct/indirect influence) and the outer regions of Botswana, Zambia, or Mozambique, and that the borders need never change in order to play the "games" of divide-and-rule? Notice that from the end of colonialism, the borders never changed, but Apartheid/divide-and-rule flourished anyway... "Going across all the neighbours borders, now and then have a little fun." - Eddy Grant All historical European global empires, incl. the British Empire, were of course "Apartheid empires" since they had two/three tier systems as default settings. They practiced divide-and-rule as a matter of policy, just like South African systems of power did in Southern Africa, not only inside the own borders, but beyond. Never mind "Apartheid Is-real doing the same these days, there is a bigger picture to all of this. By golly, who would've have ever guessed that a GLOBAL HEGEMONY can likewise play the same divide-and-rule games everywhere on the globe and that the borders need never change in order to play the "games". They practice divide-and-rule as a matter of policy, just like Washington DC systems of power did in the USA, not only inside the own borders, but beyond. To play games, the borders need never change. All it needs is POWER, a set of rules for order, and a position of impunity. Today, our easily-deceived "leaders" in the self proclaimed "good West" (not strategists) tell us that there will be peace, as long as everybody adheres to the "belief system" that "the borders may never change". Everybody who changes the established borders is "evil" (unless of course, it is the own capital cities, or their proxies doing so: then it is "justified" by finger-pointing somewhere else, see the first opening line in this essay). The own two-tier "us/them" system says so, so it must be "true." Should anybody dare to oppose the official "good side/bad side"-narrative of the rich sitting on their thrones of power, the disinformation playbook of the empire will strike back, and their MO will be predictable: The Fake: Conduct counterfeit narrative and try to pass it off as legitimate research. The Blitz: Harass those who speak out against the empire and its friends. The Diversion: Manufacture uncertainty where little or none exists. The Screen: Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies. The Fix: Manipulate government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policy. This closely mirrors the empire's habit of using human beings as tools, as "barriers", "vassals", as "taxpayers" or other forms of voluntary/involuntary support. The empire has ways to employ human beings in direct or indirect manners, including secondary and tertiary functions of support which the supporters are not even aware of (say "taxpayers" or "propagandists"). Never mind how intelligent a state is, there will always be those who justify everything they do, or invent new words if the old ones have received an unfavourable connotation by past events. In other words, if a term "sounds bad", simply invent a new term to distance ones fluffy feelings from reality, and carry on doing as always: Divide-and-rule the planet. For example, if the term "concentration camp" sounds bad, simply invent a new term (re-education center, detention center, etc) and the "empire" can steam ahead, same old strategies of power, different words... All the above are all typical divide-and-rule strategies, which are employed on all tiers of systems intent on aggressive gain, and which are therefore typical of all systems of gain, including capitalist and democratic systems. The technique is common in the systems of "capitalism/corporatism" and "democracy/globalism" and can be examined in meta studies. It's almost guaranteed that as soon as one reaches the "sensitive zones" of the empire and systems of gain, the MSM flak will get real thick, and the apologist knee-jerk reactionary forces will get really triggered... All systems of gain are systemically infested by sociopaths and psychopaths of all kinds, who put interests and profit first, above all else. Key words for further research: 1) 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths 2) Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy 3) The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism 4) Dr Namie's research revealing the "Four Bully Types"
    1
  708. A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer. The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... 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? Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games. ------------------------------------- The people of the Africa 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance. Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent. Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers... Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games. -------------------------------------- The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, 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. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours. Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be used invisibly in times of peace, AND in times of crisis and war equaly. Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war... Insert levers of lies, mistrust... Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies... Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power... 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." [Critical question: Who is "we"?] And that is what they did. And that is what you are fighting for. America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist 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) regarding Eurasia for the template. 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? That is what empires have always done. Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances... The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."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 individual 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
  709. The disinformation playbook of the empire will strike back, and their MO will be predictable: The Fake: Conduct counterfeit narrative and try to pass it off as legitimate research. The Blitz: Harass those who speak out against the empire and its friends. The Diversion: Manufacture uncertainty where little or none exists. The Screen: Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies. The Fix: Manipulate government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policy. This closely mirrors the empire's habit of using human beings as tools, as "barriers", "vassals", as "taxpayers" or other forms of voluntary/involuntary support. The empire has ways to employ human beings in direct or indirect manners, including secondary and tertiary functions of support. These are all typical divide and rule strategies, which are employed on all tiers of systems intent on aggressive gain, and which are therefore typical of all systems of gain, including capitalist and democratic systems. The technique is common in the systems of "capitalism/corporatism" and "democracy/globalism" and can be examined in meta studies. It's almost guaranteed that as soon as one reaches the "sensitive zones" of the empire, the MSM flak will get real thick... These systems are systemically infested by sociopaths and psychopaths of all kinds, who put interests and profit first, above all else. Key words for further research: 1) 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths 2) Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy 3) The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism 4) Dr Namie's research revealing the "Four Bully Types"
    1
  710. THE STRATEGY OF THE PROXY This strategy is as old as empires themselves... In a systemic analysis the question "Who was right, or who was wrong: Armenius, or the Roman Empire?" becomes irrelevant over time. Why? Because every individual has opinions and priorities according to which right/wrong sides are judged, often incompletely (lack of information), biased, or simply poorly. At the time, the Roman Empire was the rules based order and simply determined right from wrong as a top-down strategy according to own priorities and interests, and steered events using its own GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER. In respect to Arminius, he was an example of the strategy employed by Rome on multiple fronts and regions. The strategy employed proactively was to use a talented individual, or a multitude of individuals combined by an idea (ideology), turned into a useful tool or an instrument of POWER. By granting such entities or individuals a "superior" (sic.) Roman education, wearing a toga, and speaking Latin, no doubt eating pizza, and then releasing such converts onto the "sa7ages/animalis" (sic.) of the rimlands, in some or other official function, in order to employ them as tools of the expanding empire. The institutions of the expanding empire, funded and pulled the strings in the background. "Do as the Romans do" was not just a saying, but it was an actual strategy of POWER. As the Roman Empire expanded, others were simply expected to adapt, not ONLY "in Rome" as per saying, but everywhere Rome had emplaced itself, and started converting the "sa7ages" to its own norms and standards. Such a strategy might succeed, or it might simply fail spectacularly, as it did in the case of Armenius, who used his knowledge to stand up to the expansion of the Roman Empire, which was trying to use him as a tool to project the empire onto the native tribes where the desired marchroute of expansion lay in the forests of Central Europe... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest "The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest ... was a major battle between Germanic tribes and the Roman Empire that took place at modern Kalkriese from September 8–11, 9 AD, when an alliance of Germanic peoples ambushed Roman legions and their auxiliaries, led by Publius Quinctilius Varus. The alliance was led by Arminius, a Germanic officer of Varus's auxilia. Arminius had acquired Roman citizenship and had received a Roman military education, which enabled him to deceive the Roman commander methodically and anticipate the Roman army's tactical responses." With regards to the Roman Empire, here is the critical question: What would have happened, had Arminius lost? Answer: The Roman Empire, the outsiders, would have taken one step forward, and the "ratchet" would have locked in... However, the empire lost. Rome suffered its "Little Big Horn", but could simply come back tomorrow if it pleased, to "teach lessons" to the "injuns" in the outback of Europe. Such setbacks doesn't mean that this strategy of POWER and EXPANSION simply died out with the Roman Empires. Roman strategies lived on. At the time, Rome had the means to try try TRY again and again, because it had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of power. Dispite the defeat, the Roman Empire could still REACH its rivals, but these rivals could not REACH the Roman Empire, at least for the time being. The balance of power, and the technological and organisational superiority still favored the Roman Empire. All European colonial empires, and the later rising USA, in fact "copy cat"-ed the Roman Empire, in pretty much everything they did. There are a multitude of historical examples of the implementation of this technique of "divide and rule", for example the "converted Japan" (into the ingroup), which served as a tool for the USA/(some) European Imperial powers in the late-19th century. The Roman Empire also did not invent these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies, because these simply morphed as time passed, and like living organisms simply adapted to their environment, the strategists/strategies adapted to every new era. Whether it was the British Empire trying to make "everybody speaking English", or the French trying to turn everybody in their sphere of interest into croissant eaters (lol), the STRATEGY was the same. Take a few talented locals, and morph them as proxies, in order to rule over all the other locals, by the newly-created division. Inject superior beings, as tools to convert the lower ranking original inhabitants, to become the next in the lineup. Morph their culture or way of life, so that these gradually and almost unnoticably, turn into the voluntary tools of the empire in charge, which is thus advancing one step at a time. Such tools can then be employed in multiple useful manners, for example as soldiers, as taxpayers in various ways, as factories to produce lesser value goods for the empire, as local politicians in the "caboose" (pockets) of the empire, lawyers to implement the foreign empire's new laws, or simply as "barrier zones" (settler colonialism as explained in the below comments section in the essay starting with "In the study of conflict resulting out of the migration of large cultural groups...") ... or simply a systemic "buck catcher" (John Mearsheimer) to act as bait to lure an opposing empire into "extending" itself while battling a rimzone of another empire, of which the core of POWER is protected within the unreachable heartland of the empire who can steer/manage/moderate subsequent events.
    1
  711. POWER. DOESN'T. CARE. Maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy. All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are trapped in a "divide and rule world", and it has been all about PROFITS and CONTROL over the people. Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers... Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible. It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"... Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country? Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting. Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this: - You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections. - You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media. - You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual. - You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way. - You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference. Here is what you can do, easily: 1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours) 2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed 3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
    1
  712. "God" is the original "divider" using favoratism ("chosen ones"). The technique is to get other men to do the exact opposite as stated in the 10 Commandments, thereby initiating the divide-and-rule technique of gain: deceive men to lie, steal, ki!!, bow down to money and other human beings, idolize wealth, idolize man-made systems, and covet the resources below the feet of others, then bear false witness with regards to what they initiated... 》》》》》》》》》》》》》 The powerful have used the strategy of divide-and-rule for thousands of years to drive a wedge between peoples. As Johann Wolfgang von Goethe noted a long time ago: "Divide and rule, calls the politician; unite and lead, is the slogan of the wise." Some politicians and rulers may do this innocently and without thinking, but most know exactly what they are doing with their divisive tongues and their line-drawing divisions. It is their most successful technique that allows them to rule over us by preventing greater unity among people. This allows them to skim off enormous wealth from the gross national product that actually belongs to all people. If it is important to you, forward this message to others. Unite with those you are ordered to hate, according to Goethe because this is the counter strategy of "the wise". We should not allow them to continue winning in the same way for the next thousand years. Divide-and-rule. Draw lines, then set the people up against each other. If there is a problem, blame somebody else. That is the historical Albion's way. Incredible how many can be deceived for so long. Before 1945 it was mainly the British- and French Empires which kept conflicts alive by drawing lines in favor of one group over the other. Other Europeans and later the USA joined in ("collective West"). The lines were often randomly drawn through tribes, through religious- or ethnic groups, to favor either the one, then the other. This created volatile hot spots of ethnic conflicts to use as pretext for intervention and occupation as the moral "rule maker". After 1945 the USA simply took over as "divider-in-chief". The New Testament is the antithesis of the Old Testament with regards to the message. The ambiguity is exploited to confuse...
    1
  713.  @HirelSingha  WW1 was the USA's hitherto biggest "regime change operation" (Germany) and "debt trap diplomacy" intended to bring down their biggest rivals: the British Empire. Because here is what they tell you is "history" in thousands and thousands of books and docs: the "German people" or "German leaders" were the ones (fingers pinting) who "forced Wilhelm II into exile, to abdicate" or variations of that. Here is what they (usually) don't say (lie by omission): That it was the own side which had previously coerced other German leaders into forcing the German government out of office, because that was a condition for negotions to take place in the first place. 1) coerce German leaders to topple the current government 2) leaders topple the current government 3) omit step 1), or pretend it never happened, and "write history" that pleases the own feelings... 4) repeat the story again and again No amount of finger pointing deflection, personal standpoint, or any other justifications change this causal chain of events though. "The President would deem himself lacking in candor did he not point out in the frankest possible terms the reason why extraordinary safeguards must be demanded. Significant and important as the constitutional changes seem to be which are spoken of by the German Foreign Secretary in his note of the 20th of October, it does not appear that the principle of a government responsible to the German people has yet been fully worked out or that any guarantees either exist or are in contemplation that the alterations of principle and of practice now partially agreed upon will be permanent. Moreover, it does not appear that the heart of the present difficulty has been reached. It may be that future wars have been brought under the control of the German people, but the present war has not been; and it is with the present war that we are dealing. It is evident that the German people have no means of commanding the acquiescence of the military authorities of the empire in the popular will; that the power of the King of Prussia to control the policy of the empire is unimpaired; that the determining initiative still remains with those who have hitherto been the masters of Germany. Feeling that the whole peace of the world depends now on plain speaking and straightforward action, the President deems it his duty to say, without any attempt to soften what may seem harsh words, that the nations of the world do not and cannot trust the word of those who have hitherto been the masters of German policy, and to point out once more that in concluding peace and attempting to undo the infinite injuries and injustices of this war the Government of the United States cannot deal with any but veritable representatives of the German people who have been assured of a genuine constitutional standing as the real rulers of Germany." [Source: International Notes: Diplomatic Notes Prepared By Allan Westcott, Ph. D., Instructor, U. S. Naval Academy November 1918 Proceedings Vol. 44/11/189 GERMANY'S EFFORT FOR PEACE Germany Approaches President Wilson.—The German Chancellor, Prince Maximilian of Baden, on October 6 addressed to President Wilson a message requesting his intervention for peace and the conclusion of an immediate armistice. Austria-Hungary sent a request couched in similar terms.]
    1
  714. Sitting on the fence, eating rice and drinking tea...
    1
  715.  @Placid_Cat  All dichotomies confuse: Is the world "unipolar" or "multipolar"? The reality? It does not matter, for if one has power. one can use the divide-and-rule strategy of power, regardless of any other realities. The powerful have used the strategy of divide-and-rule for thousands of years to drive a wedge between peoples. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe noted back then: "Divide and rule, calls the politician; unite and lead, is the slogan of the wise." Some politicians and rulers may do this innocently and without thinking, but most know exactly what they are doing with their divisive tongues and their line-drawing divisions. It is their most successful technique that allows them to rule over us by preventing greater unity among people. This allows them to skim off enormous wealth from the gross national product that actually belongs to all people. If it is important to you, forward this message to others. Unite with those you are ordered to hate, according to Goethe because this is the counter strategy of "the wise". We should not allow them to continue winning in the same way for the next thousand years. Divide-and-rule. Draw lines, then set the people up against each other. If there is a problem, blame somebody else. That is the historical Albion's way. Incredible how many can be deceived for so long. They keep conflicts alive by drawing lines in favor of one group over the other. The lines were often randomly drawn through tribes, through religious- or ethnic groups, to favor either the one, then the other. This created volatile hot spots of ethnic conflicts to use as pretext for intervention and occupation as the moral "rule maker". ------------------------------------------------------ "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 enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy. 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. Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups (e.g., Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. 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
  716. Yup. It's an age-old technique, called "the ally/proxy/favorite", all "extensions" of the own system. "The Force" to influence billions of minds is strategy. The most effective of these is the divide and rule/conquer technique. It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: WRONG. It is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling". Every system which does not specifically forbid ze divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it. No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy". One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is. Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use ze technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Like the Nazis, all power players regardless of the "system of gain" in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves... Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank. The favorite = the proxy. Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish. All that is needed is a position of superior power. The Big Lie is the power of the divide and rule/conquer technique, and even the Nazis hid their "Big Lie"-conspiracy theory, behind an even bigger lie: how they intended to play this game until they got into power after their failed coup d'etat. The "Big Lie" is not a myth but a misrepresentation of the truth. It is the power of "divide and rule/conquer" which lurks behind every strategy they follow, in order to gain. No human being has ever come up with a means to overcome this age-old technique of ruling over billions of people, because it is predicated on human nature itself, which is enduring. No power player wants to become associated with authoritarian, or "colonial" tactics and strategies, or Nazis, so they cannot use it as a political means to attack rivals: it will immediately result in blowback. The "Big Lie" conspiracy masked the divide and rule technique. No power player can ever accuse any other power player of using it, since it will immediately backfire: the accusation of using the technique themselves, which in most cases of intent of gain will even apply***. The disguise usually comes in the form of scapegoating or another form of appeal to the emotion of listeners, or addressing and fortifying their already existing biases. "Scapegoating" = an appeal to lower emotions of potential supporters. In our divided societies, appealing to these biases might always be that tiny little "weight" that tilts the scale in very tightly run political elections. Most power players read books on strategy, with the intention of using these strategies for personal gain, not because they wish to benefit you (the individual). There is always the urge to defend own favored systems, when one reads perceived "attacks" on these favored systems or own heroes, and the beloved own "-isms", which also reveal standard procedures, meaning the "attacker" soon falls into predetermined pathways to deflect and obfuscate from the core theory... Footnotes: **only applies in competitive "intent of gain" systems, *not benevolent forms of reciprocal human interaction which are 100% fair...
    1
  717. What he explained is nothing new. 125 years ago, if your front page screamed "Remember the Maine" your paper sold, and you got paid.
    1
  718. Yup. 100% FAUX liberal empires, who can read past all statements made by their leaders, and which were actually implemented reveal their own true nature. To gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves (and then stand in their "shiny houses on hills" claiming everybody else is either jealous or greedy). If not by direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony. Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources. That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only IR (international Relations). Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet. This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule). Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
    1
  719. From the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other systems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that "all other systems are bad/evil", want to "rule the world" or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system of government is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthroat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and their true human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources. footnote1 In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality." And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
    1
  720. It's a lot older than 2014. It goes all the way back to the 18th century. Throughout modern history, the intention of the "rimlands" of Europe, was to avoid the emergence of a single "power" on the continent of Europe, later Eurasia. It is really as simple as that. It doesn't matter what any individual thinks any event on the timeline, incl. all crises and wars, were all about, because whichever conclusion any individual reaches is wrong, misconstrued, or whatever: the reality is that nobody in a true position of POWER will step forward and correct you, until you reach a position of true power yourself. They will not correct you as an individual, nor as a part of a collective lower tiered entity, no matter how many millions of individuals make up such a collective lower tiered entity. The strategy of POWER employed here is called "lying by omitting," and point the finger everywhere else...
    1
  721. Doublespeak was not invented in 1984. "Just helping our friends" = supporting some poor nation to do our bidding for us. "Give us the tools and we will fight" = If you have to beg for support, you ARE already "the tool" for another power... And these overlords? In the end, they always "run off with all the effin money" (quote George Carlin, explaining how divide-and-rule works). Because that is what the lords did when the Empire folded. They took their own money to the tax havens they had invented for themselves in the meantime, and left the average citizen to pull the cart out of the rut... This will repeat.
    1
  722. https://youtu.be/tR2kebxDZjw?si=q9P0xtXjA3P2i01P Auf Sanevox, vor ca. 8 Tagen. 👍
    1
  723.  @pj_ytmt-123  The "line drawing" by outside powers (France and Great Britain) started before, during WW1 (Balfour Declaration/Sykes-Picot). No, that wasn't what the Arabs had signed up for when the promises were initially made to get them to rise up against the Ottoman Empire. They had been promised an "Arab state", and the Balfour Declaration and Sykes-Picot were initially kept secret, without any involvement of Arab leaders. Later the "line drawing" favored mass-immigration to such a "sector" of the lines (Palestine). No, the 650,000 people already living here, of various ethnic/teligious groups, were never asked whether they agreed to such "lines". A plebiscite or referendum was never held, a very imperiast attitude, esp. regarding the promises made with regards to "why we fight" (Allies/WW1), who stated that no nation should ever have to accept having rulings imposed onto them without consent. After the war such grand declarations of being the "good guys" were quickly forgotten, and imperialism became the norm ("might is right"). Such "favoratism" of settler colonialism as in Palestine, was the same as carried out in parallel in many places in the Empire, Kenya for example. Here the "White Highlands" were vacated after WW1 to make room for settler colonists from Europe (in other words, "migrants" or "immigrants" from abroad). Note that the "favoratism" of certain groups above others is always "divide and rule", an imperialist strategy.
    1
  724.  @pj_ytmt-123  The "states" created in the ME by the British and French were virtual puppet states, without any real power. The template for such an occupation by an imperial power using euphemistic language to disguise the de facto occupation, and complete political domination from outside, had previously been created with post-1882 Egypt. Egypt was also ostensibly "independant", but under the military control of the British Empire as "sphere of influence".
    1
  725. Those who systemically gain under all outcomes, the "Blackrock"-class, don't care. They'll pluck the Ukraine and present it like a stuffed Christmas turkey, as another "Western success story" (lije South Korea) regardless of how many suffer and are displaced: it is the history of divide-and-rule.
    1
  726. It's divide-and-rule.
    1
  727. Empire of greed. G rift R use E mpire E fficacy D ivide and rule
    1
  728. Unfortunately, the world won't listen, because for the collective Western leaders, Algeria is "on the wrong side of history." Geopolitically, Algeria dares to side with China, and not bow down to US global hegemony, and Western domination...
    1
  729. @Number4lead  Ahhh...welcome to the finger pointer. Easily recognisable by its feathers.
    1
  730. ​ @myew4481  "Century of Shame." A loose coalition of western imperialist powers cooperated, using the divide-and-rule technique, to bring China down and plunder its wealth for 100 years...
    1
  731. Yes, be wise. Beware of the divide-and-conquer strategy. The colonial powers used it 100 and 200 years ago, and still use it today. The aim is to leverage "divides", and set up neighbors against neighbors. If everybody fights, the imperialist dividers who cannot be reached because of geographical distance, end up winning.
    1
  732. What most MSM and established historians seem to forget, whilst proudly advocating the "fighting for democracy" virtue signalling, is that it had been the democratic "liberal empires" (USA/GB) which had lain the foundation of Europe`s demise around the year 1900. From the position of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE which afforded the slight edge in power, which was then exploited by seeing to it that others where kept "down" and "out" of the reach of resources which were needed to succeed. These resources were controlled via that slight edge which geography afforded, at that was true at ALL times. It a systemic conclusion, which unlike all other theories out there, is true at ALL times, never mind how far one goes back into the past. Those who carry out such "rule," are not going to tell us how they rule by division on ALL tiers, and how they have ruled by division on all tiers for thousands of years. It is about the oldest trick in the book, to rule by division from a position of POWER. They will tell us, their "good fools," that it is all about the good vs. the bad but guess what they are NOT telling us? They never state HOW they manage it. The top tiers divide and rule, and this functions in one direction only: down, to the base, which is "we the people." They divide us, but we have no way or means to divide them, the top tiers, in return. Revealing capitalist gain systems, to put things in perspective a bit: "Mr. Brown, do you mean to tell me you would let (workers) work until they dropped dead?" Corporate CEO Lewis H Brown: "Yes. We save a lot of money that way." Source: Charles Roemer, a Johns Manville employee recalling what Brown said in a deposition. Topic: an already known deadly health risk posed by asbestos in the lung aka mesothelioma, and the associated almost 100-year lasting coverup attempts by DuPont, etc. This is not just some obscure example out of context, or the proverbial anecdotal evidence, but as thousands of similar examples have shown, is systemic. The disinformation playbook regarding coverups and corporate 101 of denial and business as usual, even against scientific evidence of the harm caused by own policies/products. The Fake: Conduct counterfeit science and try to pass it off as legitimate research. The Blitz: Harass scientists who speak out with results or views inconvenient for industry. The Diversion: Manufacture uncertainty about science where little or none exists. The Screen: Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies. The Fix: Manipulate government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policy. These are all typical divide and rule strategies, which are employed on all tiers of systems intent on aggressive gain, and which are therefore typical of all systems of gain, including capitalist and democratic systems. The technique is more than adequately explained in the below comments section, and the similarities between the systems of "capitalism/corporatism" and "democracy/globalism" can be examined in meta studies. These systems are systemically infested by sociopaths and psychopaths of all kinds, who who put interests and profit first, above all else. Key words for further research: 1) 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths 2) Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy 3) The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism 4) Dr Namie's research revealing the "Four Bully Types" A large portion of our fellow human beings perceive these as valid traits to achieve the own political and personal priorities. "Might is right", and "end justifies the means" are still axioms of so-called superiority. There is also no reason to believe that any other system which promises power, will not attract similar numbers of bullies and psychopaths. Reality: Liberal democracies and capitalist gain models and the pleasing narratives they spread, attract psychos like moths to the flame, and most human beings wouldn't be able to spot a psycho even if their lives depended on it. Most human beings living in symbiosis of systems either don't have the skill to recognize bad actors, nor the inclination to remove them since it is tangentially beneficial to own favored systems which affords the own good life, or have become directly entrapped by the gain models (pyramidal shaped hierarchies) lead by such bad actors. It doesn't seem to bother sufficient decent people enough to make such management styles which lead to the direct and indirect deaths of millions around the world impossible (effect a stopper against such models de jure or de facto). Indeed, based on observation, and looking back in history it can therefore be concluded that such behavior is only given a slap on the wrist, and therefore continues in so-called "good empires". Studies have shown that models based on intent of gain have rates of people with psychopathic tendencies as high as 20%. Compare that reality to the average for a normal society, or usual non-gain models of cooperation, which is around a 1% psycho rate. There is no reason to believe other models of intent of gain (like politics) do not have similar high rates of psychos. All empires as collectives of individuals have by nature, psychopathic and bullying tendencies. Note that the Hollywood image of the psycho and the bully is far removed from reality. The unfortunate reality is that most psychopaths/bullies remain undetected, and undetectable, because they manipulate entire groups of non-psychos/non-bullies into following them as beneficiaries, who then start entire campaigns of coverups and deception themselves.
    1
  733. Whatever you try to accuse Russia of doing, the USA/collective West is already doing it, times 2.
    1
  734. ​@bigballs Yup. Good ol' "pot calling the kettle black."
    1
  735. If anybody wishes to know what is in store for the EU and other American "best fwiends" after 2025, look back in history to what the USA did to the British Empire after WW2, when it was bankrupt and weak. The first victim of the American Century was not as proclaimed and the generally accepted narrative of history, that "it was the USSR" (sic./Truman Doctrine, "Iron Curtain"-narrative), but the British Empire, which was cut down size turning London from "British lion" to "poodle" in around 25 years, using economic warfare. "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise." [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500. My shoutout to the original author's whose site is since removed.] Pure unfettered opportunism. After 1945 the USA used its own might as hammer and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). By 1945, Stalin (Moscow), smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and witnessing the collapse of virtually every other European power, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2. It was overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has self-centred imperialist aims and goals , one eventually destroys all alternatives, and when you try to defend everything, you'll eventually "defend nothing" (Friedrich the Great, re. a false allocation of clout and resources, in grand strategy and geopolitics). That was preceded in geopolitics by a Washington DC shift away from a global non-interventionalist stand on international relations, towards a more active engagement in world affairs and global expansion which incl. European affairs (the study of "Offensive Realism") which started around the year 1900, symbolized by the Spanish-American War (1898). Something London lords happily signed up for with the "Great Rapprochement" (aligned and associated "friends only, no obligations", in the "interests"-reality of imperialism). London must have thought the good times were coming, alongside their "new friends" and making the rules for everybody else. Two Albions getting happily engaged... What could possibly wrong putting your trust in Washington DC? In reality, your "friends" in capitalism over the Atlantic can't wait for history to repeat, to wait until Europe is weak again, exhausted from war, down in power, ready for the carving knives of OUTSIDE imperialism, all by the "friends" who are standing by and standing down to enter and benefit from the destruction they themselves greatly contributed to after the 1990s.
    1
  736.  @jullietmburu9672  Yes, very true. But there is a consistant force in human nature, which is a constant: that is the the young and impulsive, mislead by the "interests"-brigade of the money elites. This ingroup are keen to "find themselves" and rebel against the warning voices of their own older populations, and they are the opposite of the "young hippies". Thomas Jefferson classified these easily influenced young and ignorant as the "rich, proud, hectoring, swearing, squibbing." He stated this in another context, but still as true as 200 years ago.
    1
  737. The Ukrainian leaders have not grasped a core issue: their role in US/collective West strategy is to bleed dry in order to "extend Russia", possibly to a point of Russian Revolution 4.0, but specifically not to win. "Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place. If we're ignorant, we won't even know when government infringes on our liberties." -- Walter E. Williams Empires fight the problems they created in the first place.
    1
  738. Correction. The "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbing, carniverious" (Thomas Jefferson, re. imperialism) NEVER admit what really happened, never mind how damning the evidence is... See Brits today, re. the Empire and why it failed. HOW TO LOSE YOUR EMPIRE: 2024 VERSION Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all history books. Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Note the definition of ancillary: it does NOT mean "false" or "wrong." It simply states these theories, which could be correct in themselves, are not as important as other theories of a higher tier. Ever since the establishment of their Empire, London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." (From a primary source) In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. This had nothing to do with "Germany". Before that, it was France. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's fatal mistake was snuggling up to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the British Empire. This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address issues as they rose. The two powers started nodding off each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or taken under duress or outside pressure, or otherwise, are fallacies. From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I." If you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). EPISODE I: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races (edit: the term "races" was not used the same way it is today) becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one." SOURCE: "ROYAL PAINS, WILHELM II, EDWARD VII AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910." There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what story we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies (ALL MORE THAN ADEQUATELY ELABORATED in the below comments section) called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend. EPISODES II thru IV: Lotsa other stuff happening. EPISODE V: If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centered imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens: "What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003 Also known as the "peaceful transfer of power" like as if London had a choice. Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover... No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire. If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power. When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most? Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER. After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided". The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative. "Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl... London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century. After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A Big Three to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games. All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died. They preached Darwinism, and succumbed to it.
    1
  739. Boomers are booming because they have old money, from the "good ol' days". Most others, specifically the current middle class and poor, are the losers of the current system. I would say closer to 50% of Americans are "losers", rather than the 30% you stated. rgds
    1
  740. All states, also the western style "liberal democracies" and therefore the "good states" have set up non-elected agencies, which are outside of the control of any voters, and therefore the collective wisdom and moral values of humanity. The resulting system is that of pyramidically shaped systems of gain in which power and wealth is funnelled to the top. These pyramidically shaped systems of gain called "capitalism" and "politics" have the stated goal of removing opposition, known as being a "dirty game". They are designed by nature to attract fellow human beings with aggressive and even psychopathic tendencies (see footnote). A large portion of our fellow human beings perceive these as valid traits to achieve the own political and personal priorities. "Might is right", and "end justifies the means" are still axioms of so-called superiority. There is also no reason to believe that any other system which promises power, will not attract similar numbers of bullies and psychopaths. Reality: "Liberal democracies" and "capitalist gain models" attract psychos like moths to the flame, and most human beings wouldn't be able to spot a psycho even if their lives depended on it. Most human beings living in symbiosis of systems either don't have the skill to recognize bad actors, nor the inclination to remove them since it is tangentially beneficial to own favoured systems, or have become directly entrapped by the "gain models" (pyramids of power/wealth) lead by such bad actors. An example of this would be the case of Oliver North, whose psychopathic dealings were rewarded by "the system" with a highly paid management position (NRA). It doesn't seem to bother sufficient decent people enough to make such "management styles" impossible (effect a "stopper" against such models de jure or de facto). Indeed, based on observation, and looking back in history it can therefore be concluded that such behaviour is only given a "slap on the wrist" (ineffective punishment), and therefore continues in our good empires on the right side of history... -------- Footnote: Studies have shown that models based on "intent of gain", like capitalism, have rates of people with psychopathic tendencies as high as 20%. Compare that reality to the average for a normal society, or usual non-gain models of cooperation, which is around a "1% psycho saturation rate". There is no reason to believe other models of "intent of gain" (like politics) do not have similar high rates of psychos. These bad actors and deceivers play games with their own inhabitants, telling them things like "all we want is peace", whereas in reality there are elements pushing for eternal war which benefits the systems they represent. Key words for further research: 1) 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths 2) Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy 3) The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
    1
  741. ​ @magnaviator  Yes, Washington DC despises governments which try to set up "gatekeepers" to protect their inhabitants from becoming an outpost of the US imperial system (disguised as a system of "friends, in a rules-based order"). See Georgia.
    1
  742. In the study of conflict resulting out of the migration of large cultural groups, usually as part of agendas or expansion. What is presently happening, as a part of a wider conflict going back at least 100 years, is the immigration of a superior culture of lighter skin-colored cultural ingroup, injected onto a darker skin-colored cultural outgroup. The favored ingroup coming from outside (people born elsewhere) received land, livestock, and a home of sorts, all based on the advantage of having "friends in the right places", and having more resources at hand for the own aims and goals. In return, they become what the USA did during their own expansion into North America, the "farms/forts", which if "shot at" would always be "just defended", or "shooting back" (see below essays for more examples of this strategy or "101 playbook of imperialism" for expansion of the own systems). The "settler colonist" (system) is the TOOL of expansion. While the existing population was squeezed out of strategically vital areas one step at a time (arable farmland, for example, or sources of water), the faraway controlling political movement sought widespread support from whoever would give it, specifically from very imperialistic indoctrinated "friendly systems", for the own expansive goals. Real or at least tacid support for the "own -ism" is bought from large organization, like the UN for example. People who came with the well-wishing of large portions of the "ingroup"-supporters ("-isms"), or at least indifferent/ignorant of the real issues and therefore largely complacent, created a culture of "settler colonialism", creating a "storyline" that if such a settler colonist is attacked in any way, that they will be "just defending themselves". The original imperialist expansion (industrial/financial/argricultural/mining/raw materials/ideological, etc.), of "settler colonialism" being the cause of conflict, is simply never questioned at all... Of course, one does not need a cristal ball, or be a Nostradumbass in order to predict that conflict was bound to take place, in view of previously unfolding similar series of historical events, in other places in the world, where people with an "-ism", emboldened by a feeling of cultural superiority, following a prescribed set of steps as strategy, in order to gain a superior political/economic position for the own "tribe" (tribalism). When one studies the various perspectives about human conflict, one can't help wondering who is most to blame. Is it: 1) the various enablers and deciders as executive powers? (leaderships) 2) those who saw financial opportunities to exploit, specifically in case troubles/strife ensued? (opportunists) 3) those who wished to proliferate themselves, advance personal carriers, or similar free-riders, but otherwise had no real POWER as executives? (political expediency of choosing sides) 4) the huddled masses without land, who decided to take the lifeline thrown at them, despite knowing that they were imposing on another already existing indigenous population? (chosen ingroup) 5) the indigenous population, mostly equally "huddled masses" just trying to eke out a living, but who were never asked what they wanted for themselves as collective? (chosen outgroup) 6) any other, or a different order, since this is an open question It should not be too difficult to conclude that responsibility for the resulting conflict goes pretty much in the order of 1 to 5, with those mostly responsible being the few "deciders" (as 1). These should not only have been in the position to foresee trouble ahead, but also to acknowledge these foreseeable events, and then search alternatives. Only... ...the unfolding series of events did not take place in the Middle East, and did not involve London, the British Empire, France, or any other western power. The conflict mentioned in the first paragraphs, has been taking place with gathering momentum over the past 100 years, is taking place in Irian Jaya (Indonesia) of course. I hope nobody concluded is was about some other place somewhere else in the world... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_conflict The "strategic encroachment" as part of such "outgroup"-agendas must be searched for... "During the late 20th century Indonesia resettled 300,000 farmers to the restive province of West Papua, transforming its demographic composition. Such resettlement, or ‘transmigration’, was quite limited until the mid-1980s and restricted to only certain areas of West Papua. What accounts for the incidence of transmigration? Using a panel of all transmigration, ethnic cleansing and demographic change data in each regency of West Papua during 1964-2000 compiled from confidential government sources, I show that, after an aborted Papuan uprising in 1984, Indonesia cleansed and settled its border with Papua New Guinea to forestall cross-border insurgent activity. I then show that after the Grasberg gold mine was opened in 1990 Indonesia cleansed and settled the area around the mine." from the introduction of "Indonesian Settler Colonialism in West Papua", 10 Jun 2020, Lachlan McNamee, University of California, Los Angeles According to the "NIMBY"-principle, most people actually do not care much about unfolding events far away, so are most likely completely unaware that there even is a simmering conflict somewhere else. According to "NIMBY" however, should the shoe be on the other foot, and the own existence becomes "encroached upon" by an outside migrating group (immigrants/refugees), all of similar background, it doesn't take long for the observed "unease" to begin. Firstly, in the form of lots of moaning and groaning, then if no political action changing the course of events results, the "steps" gradually increase in the level of violence exerted. Firstly there would be randomly organized protests, then larger forms of civil unrest, more property damage, more arson, the first deaths, and so on, and so on, until there is a large scale revolution. Any wise political leadership will always head off such series of unfolding events, but there must be a recognition that action is called for. If not, the series of events always follow predictable patterns, regardless of the tier of events, the cultural background of those involved, the gods these people pray to, the ideology, or the language spoken.
    1
  743. Divide-and-rule. There are no "invisible hands." It happens out in the open, but is disguised by the typical MSM narrative which disguises this top down US/NATO strategy. Most pundits are probably totally unaware of this strategy, but when they start reporting on those facts which expose the strategy, these reporters or whistleblowers are immediately pounced upon as "Pootin apologists" or framed as traitors, paid stooges, shills, etc.
    1
  744. It wasn't wise leaders who avoided the early Cold War (Cuban Missle Crisis) from spiralling out of control into nuclear war, but the plain luck that dangerous situations were "blocked" lower down the chain of command.
    1
  745. Apparrently a brain was switched off for a full hour....
    1
  746.  @dianaanthony2981  Hello Diana Please feel free to copy and paste the OP, to change it if you wish, and spread the core message as often as you please. Cheers, and stay free.
    1
  747. 29:24 "Why is it...?" Chad already mentioned it before. They are divided and are now ruled over by Washington DC, and US dominated organisations like NATO, IMF, which dominates their future, and three-letter agencies which steer divisions all over the world, turning Europeans into "poodle states" always in the position of having to react to a political landscape created by US strategists for US primacy. Divide-and-rule.
    1
  748. Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century. The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021). This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?" The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule. Systemic/ideological expansion into: - Eastern Europe. - Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route) - Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route) Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired. "The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner"). It is today, as it was since 1776. Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemon. Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing. Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck... Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST? Foster division. Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove... These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quite or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories." Then... 1) Divide-and-gain. If not. 2) Divide-and-control. If not. 3) Divide-and-rule. If not. 4) Divide-and-conquer. If not. 5) Divide-and-destroy. ...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing. The Albion. The Albion 2.0. The USA can gain somewhere else? Greenland. (Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template") Wait for it...
    1
  749. The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a "bark" by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War). Moscow was tacidly nodding off the observed reality, without too much interference at this point in time, since gaining full spectrum domination in Eastern Europe was more important at the time. Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, they are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent. Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust... Create favorites: favoratism... Point the finger, everywhere else... Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... 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-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? §§§footnote The concept of the "straight out lie" is related to a variety of other terms within the spectrum of "political techniques," commonly defined as "strategic ambiguity;" and/or incl. such concepts as "lying by omitting," misdirection, misconstrued, spinning, framing, all either intentionally, or sometimes unintentionally.
    1
  750. A "little piece" was a strategy right from the start. In 1895, Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, wrote in his diary: "We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly." Salami antics...little slices, slice by slice...
    1
  751. 😅🤣😂
    1
  752. In the late 20th century, the EU morphed from the example it intended to set for the world, into just another "empire" in search of systemic expansion, [see footnote] subjected to the whims of the "buck passer" USA, "pointing fingers" at another state/power and claiming this state is in search of territorial expansion... It did so, right in front of the eyes of half a billion of its subjects, very few noticing this "shift.". This is history rhyming. Today, the EU is led by a bunch of weak and pathetic "leaders", is deceiving millions of its own inhabitants. Oldest trick in the book. Simply "exchange" a concept in geopolitics, and millions of people are then deceived by their own brain functions, because they suddenly cannot think straight, and are deceived by the "right/wrong"-dichotomy... Footnote: NATO = a "state of affairs" within the "chessboard" (grand strategy) of states of affairs.
    1
  753. For the elites, it has nothing to do with ethnicity, but of loyalty. In divide-and-rule, going back as far as the Roman Empire, the language or race played little role. What mattered was "How useful" a group or entity was. This is still so today.
    1
  754. What allows the divide and rule/conquer technique to persist, is actually "motivated reasoning", because the dividers exploit every individual's "motivations", and sets entire systems up against each other. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning
    1
  755. Trump is an imperialist. Under his tenure, Washington DC simply handed over East Jerusalem and other annexed territory to Israel.
    1
  756. "They were all of them deceived."
    1
  757. Es wird wahrscheinlich in Kuerze auf der Deutschen version von Pascal's Kanal hochgeladen.
    1
  758. In the study of conflict resulting out of the migration of large cultural groups, usually as part of agendas or expansion. What is presently happening, as a part of a wider conflict going back at least 100 years, is the immigration of a superior culture of lighter skin-colored cultural ingroup, injected onto a darker skin-colored cultural outgroup. The favored ingroup coming from outside (people born elsewhere) received land, livestock, and a home of sorts, all based on the advantage of having "friends in the right places", and having more resources at hand for the own aims and goals. In return, they become what the USA did during their own expansion into North America, the "farms/forts", which if "shot at" would always be "just defended", or "shooting back" (see below essays for more examples of this strategy or "101 playbook of imperialism" for expansion of the own systems). The "settler colonist" (system) is the TOOL of expansion. While the existing population was squeezed out of strategically vital areas one step at a time (arable farmland, for example, or sources of water), the faraway controlling political movement sought widespread support from whoever would give it, specifically from very imperialistic indoctrinated "friendly systems", for the own expansive goals. Real or at least tacid support for the "own -ism" is bought from large organisation, like the UN for example. People who came with the well-wishing of large portions of the "ingroup"-supporters ("-isms"), or at least indifferent/ignorant of the real issues and therefore largely complacent, created a culture of "settler colonialism", creating a "storyline" that if such a settler colonist is attacked in any way, that they will be "just defending themselves". The original imperialist expansion (industrial/financial/argricultural/mining/raw materials/ideological, etc.), of "settler colonialism" being the cause of conflict, is simply never questioned at all... Of course, one does not need a cristal ball, or be a Nostradumbass in order to predict that conflict was bound to take place, in view of previously unfolding similar series of historical events, in other places in the world, where people with an "-ism", emboldened by a feeling of cultural superiority, following a prescibed set of steps as strategy, in order to gain a superior political/economic position for the own "tribe" (tribalism). When one studies the various perspectives about human conflict, one can't help wondering who is most to blame. Is it: 1) the various enablers and deciders as executive powers? (leaderships) 2) those who saw financial opportunities to exploit, specifically in case troubles/strife ensued? (opportunists) 3) those who wished to proliferate themselves, advance personal carriers, or similar free-riders, but otherwise had no real POWER as executives? (political expediency of choosing sides) 4) the huddled masses without land, who decided to take the lifeline thrown at them, despite knowing that they were imposing on another already existing indigenous population? (chosen ingroup) 5) the indigenous population, mostly equaly "huddled masses" just trying to eke out a living, but who were never asked what they wanted for themselves as collective? (chosen outgroup) 6) any other, or a different order, since this is an open question It should not be too difficult to conclude that responsibility for the resulting conflict goes pretty much in the order of 1 to 5, with those mostly responsible being the few "deciders" (as 1). These should not only have been in the position to foresee trouble ahead, but also to acknowledge these foreseeable events, and then search alternatives. Only... ...the unfolding series of events did not take place in the Middle East, and did not involve London, the British Empire, France, or any other western power. The conflict mentioned in the first paragraphs, has been taking place with gathering momentum over the past 100 years, is taking place in Irian Jaya (Indonesia) of course. I hope nobody concluded is was about some other place somewhere else in the world... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_conflict The "strategic encroachment" as part of such "outgroup"-agendas must be searched for... "During the late 20th century Indonesia resettled 300,000 farmers to the restive province of West Papua, transforming its demographic composition. Such resettlement, or ‘transmigration’, was quite limited until the mid-1980s and restricted to only certain areas of West Papua. What accounts for the incidence of transmigration? Using a panel of all transmigration, ethnic cleansing and demographic change data in each regency of West Papua during 1964-2000 compiled from confidential government sources, I show that, after an aborted Papuan uprising in 1984, Indonesia cleansed and settled its border with Papua New Guinea to forestall cross-border insurgent activity. I then show that after the Grasberg gold mine was opened in 1990 Indonesia cleansed and settled the area around the mine." from the introduction of "Indonesian Settler Colonialism in West Papua", 10 Jun 2020, Lachlan McNamee, University of California, Los Angeles According to the "NIMBY"-principle, most people actually do not care much about unfolding events far away, so are most likely completely unaware that there even is a simmering conflict somewhere else. According to "NIMBY" however, should the shoe be on the other foot, and the own existence becomes "encroached upon" by an outside migrating group (immigrants/refugees), all of similar background, it doesn't take long for the observed "unease" to begin. Firstly, in the form of lots of moaning and groaning, then if no political action changing the course of events results, the "steps" gradually increase in the level of violence exerted. Firstly there would be randomly organized protests, then larger forms of civil unrest, more property damage, more arson, the first deaths, and so on, and so on, until there is a large scale revolution. Any wise political leadership will always head off such series of unfolding events, but there must be a recognition that action is called for. If not, the series of events always follow predictable patterns, regardless of the tier of events, the cultural background of those involved, the gods these people pray to, the ideology, or the language spoken.
    1
  759. What you are explaining is how divide and rule is implemented. It's a so-called "long game." Because after the SU collapsed, the strategists in Washington DC and the collective West could not "turn" Russia into a tool to surround China after China's gradual rise after the 1970s/1980's, as they "turned" countries like Japan, the Philippenes, South Korea, etc. (morphed into staging areas for their military). West Germany and Japan were needed to encircle the SU in the east and west, as "unsinkable aircraft carriers" (staging areas in strategy), so they were allocated the markets to outgrow the UK, which was reality by the 1960s. GB and France were stifled, and their empires employed as tools to fight the enemy created with the Truman Doctrine (1947). The Old World's power "invested in" and European power was "extended," fighting communism, the same language used in modern strategy papers. Today, the Ukraine is used as an "investment" and a tool to "extend" Russia (actual language used in US strategy papers).
    1
  760. The biggest danger is actually nuclear contaminated material falling into the hands of some or other organisation to make a "dirty bomb" which can contaminate entire city blocks, make them uninhabitable, and cost millions to clean. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb
    1
  761. Yes. Ignorance, coupled with indifference, coupled with complacency, makes every immoral event possible...
    1
  762. These days it only takes seconds to debunk "narratives". Try a search engine sometimes 😂 "The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Arabic: ميثاق حركة المقاومة الإسلامية حماس), referred to as the Hamas Covenant or Hamas Charter, was issued by Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) on 18 August 1988 and outlines the organization's founding identity, positions, and aims.[1] In 2017, Hamas unveiled a revised charter, without explicitly revoking the 1988 charter.[2][3] The original Charter identified Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and described its members to be god-fearing Muslims raising the banner of Jihad (armed struggle) in "the face of the oppressors." The charter defines the struggle to be against the Jews and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in all of former Mandatory Palestine, and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.[4][5][6] The charter has been criticized for it use of antisemitic language,[7][8] which some commentators have characterized as incitement to genocide.[9][10] Hamas's 2017 charter removed the antisemitic language and clarified Hamas's struggle was with Zionists, not Jews. Since choosing to run candidates for office in elections, Hamas has downplayed the role of its charter.[16] In direct contradiction of the Charter, in 2008 Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh stated that Hamas would agree to accept a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, and to offer a long-term truce with Israel." [wiki]
    1
  763. Notice how Rabin never used the term "full sovereign state" when he referred to this "Palestine", but the term "less than a state." Did you spot the use of [Israel's] "natural growth"? Critical question... Where to? Where would Israelis/Zionists "naturally grow" to, if there were equal neighbors, as a balanced power, which could actually stop any such Zionist settler "growth". It is fairly clear what they wanted, and there are historical examples for this: the "pool of cheap labor" within the own borders, given a little bit of "independence" to manage own affairs, but de facto/de jure powerless to stop the CONTROLLING power, intended to be Jerusalem, as Jewish capital city. It is literally what RSA did with their "Bantustans". Back then the people could not be fooled. They saw through the deceit, and rightfully called it out for what it was: just another Apartheid ploy to avoid the rise of equals. Sad reality? Today masses of fools are being mislead into praising Israel's attempted implementation of Apartheid, while at the same time denouncing a similar scheme actually implemented by the RSA, as being bigotted/rascist. Keep up spreading the truth 👋💪
    1
  764. ​ @HashtaGuitars  Who cares? Don't you understand how causality and a timeline works? What came first? In case you need help, and before you end up with a gun in your hand in a muddy trench or dusty camp a few thousand miles away from home, search for "retrocausality".
    1
  765. The Chinese (a variety of ethnic groups, religions and linguistically related peoples in East Asia) were collectively wise enough to wake up out of their own CENTURY OF HUMILIATION and create a strong unity, as a balance of power with a single front door for own interests (Beijing). CHINESE CENTURY OF HUMILIATION For that historical analysis, one must first become realistic about the forces which were imposed on the Chinese ruling systems from OUTSIDE. During these roughly 100 years, OUTSIDERS used China as playground and a battlefield of systems/ideologies. After China started rising in power again after the 1970s, the OUTSIDERS (imperialist powers not from this region) intended to REPEAT their previous "success" of rule by division. Break up China, into smaller administrative regions, surround and encroach on them with military bases in neighbouring states like Vietnam (admitted by Robert McNamara), and become yet again easy to rule, dominate and use as steered TOOLS from outside by a variety of means (money, ideology, etc.). Forces of OUTSIDE division, do not DIVIDE other regions of the planet because they care about the "locals" living on the territories they wish to squeeze the resources from. These OUTSIDERS divide others because it reduces their collective power, and for own interests of gain models (cyclic dynamical systems of gain). One must also first become realistic with regards to what strategies of powers were employed by the "sides". DIVIDE-AND-RULE ELABORATED AS IMPOSED ONTO CHINA DURING THIS ERA "The policy which Britain has been pursuing for the last two centuries has brought her prosperity and greatness. After each victory, Britain seems, on the surface to have gained for herself no advantage whatever; all she did, she claimed to be an act of international chivalry and justice but a deeper analysis of British statesmen's claims reveals that they never speak the truth. Britain's key policy is to attack the strongest country with the help of weaker countries and then to join the weakened enemy in checking the growth of other countries and so on, and so on. British foreign policy has remained basically unchanged for two centuries. When Britain befriends or colonizes another country, the purpose is not to maintain a cordial friendship for the sake of friendship but to utilize that country as a tool to fight all threats to her supremacy. Therefore Britain always remains in a commanding position by making other countries fight her wars while she herself reaps the fruits of victory." Taken from The Vital Problem of China by Sun Yat-Sen, 1917 Virtually a template that describes every aspect of the divide-and-rule strategy, and that Europeans could have learned from, but never did, until all went down. Unlike the Chinese, Europeans didn't learn the lesson. THE EUROPEAN CENTURY OF HUMILIATION (1914 - today/ongoing) The above template can be juxtaposed onto Europe (a variety of ethnic groups, religions and linguistically related peoples in Europe/Eurasia). Just like in China during its "Century of Humiliation" (1839-1947), in Europe, the local political forces which strove to put Europe First, as balance to the Wilsonian "America First" had to compete with outside dividers which had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER during the 20th and 21st centuries. A union which could be free of outside meddling, completely independent and which was there for European interests first and foremost, and not at the behest of outside imperialist powers and their proxy domination. During these roughly 100 years after the 1890s, the European playgrounds were a battlefield of systems/ideologies. -------------------------------------------------------------- HOW TO OVERCOME DIVIDE-AND-RULE Trying to overcome the OUTSIDE DIVIDERS by playing the same game of more divisions, with yet more divided systems, was of course a counterproductive strategy, because the DIVIDERS will always win. You don't fight the "fire" of division with more fire, but with water (unity). Unfortunately, it took the Chinese millions of deaths and misery, to overcome the divisions which were created previously by outsiders cooperating with a few local proxies during the Century of Humiliation. An effect of mass death and starvation which these outside dividers then finger-point at in a Black Legend, with their "look at how evil the communists are"-rhetoric. These people are too indoctrinated to figure out that their previous own IMPERIALIST actions CAUSED this as an attempt to squeeze outsiders meddlers out of China. One doesn't fight division with more division, if the intention is more unity in a region. If systemically weak, and while systemically weak, the outside dividers will simply politically capture the rising powers, and morph or incorporate these. As an example of history rhyming, this political/cultural capture set out to take over Central Europe's main power, Germany after 1920. The weak Weimar Republic was the perfect environment and breeding ground for an outside empire's takeover (cultural-, political-, economic capture), just like China's political weakness was exploited in the Far East. It was part of the "Americanization of the World" (W.T. Stead/1901), which TRIGGERED a local political response, just like in China after 1945. This RESPONSE was that of focussing more on traditional values, and top-down political rule, based on the own previous history. Therefore, in order to overcome the outside division, those searching for more internal unity will choose a top-down form of unity, not the bottom-up form of division which will be systematically captured in a weak state/country. IN REALITY, ALL THE TALKING MEANS NOTHING. NOTHING AT ALL. It is simply emotional capture, to ensure those who "love their countries" (patriotism) stay on to face what had been sown. That is the future of the USA, as it was for the UK after 1945. From "ruler of the world" to downtrodden economic collapse of the 1970s, taken as "poodle" under the wing of the USA. Unlike the UK, or Western European "poodles" there will be no "wing" for Americans to slip under, as they fail to match the ongoing rise of the Far East/Central- and East Asia following the year 2000, and this despite their best active efforts to crash the economies of even their "friends" (Japan, the 1980s), in order to bring them down. DIVIDE-AND-RULE The USA (collective) has ONE more chance to return to the "good ol' days" (debatable) of the post-WW2 era when everybody else was "down and out" (power/military might/influence) and Washington DC ruled everywhere with supreme with full spectrum domination, apart from the regions in Eurasia under the control of Moscow. Today, the "dividers" MUST divide everybody else, or go down the same path as London after 1945. That WW2 had already resulted in a weakening of the European powers, for the benefit of whoever was left (grand strategy) was also already clear. WW1 and WW2 was one global struggle with multiple layers and which merely had a 20 year gap in between. Do we live in eternal peace interspersed by wars, or do we live in eternal war, interspersed by peace? EURASIA After 1945 the chasm created by divide-and-rule, was just shifted across from Western Europe to Eastern Europe. The dividing line was between the Baltic and the Balkans, drawn by OUTSIDERS. Today, instead of a great power becoming encircled resulting in "something silly in the Balkans" (after the 1890s), it is a great power becoming encroached upon, resulting in "something silly in the Ukraine" (after the 1990s). The line was drawn, again by OUTSIDERS, between the Baltic and the Black Sea. The "marching route" is clear. Who is encroaching on who is also clear. Certain people never learn, and repeat the same transparent strategy again and again, as long as others can be made to suffer the abject ill effects, they won't care about the effects of their own systemic meddling and their own marching route. As long as Europeans remain collectively too incompetent to figure out what they collectively lost with the conflagration of 1914-1945, then they will also be collectively too incompetent to figure out why and how they will lose again, if "WW3" is carried out as LONG WAR on their territories, as desired by their "best friends" who just so happen to gain if millions of others lose. Beware of those who turn up, telling you are a "winner on the right side of history" as you sit in the ruins created by LONG WAR. Why the desirable LONG WAR (stated by Zelensky) is desirable for the OUTSIDE POWERS as benefactors of this strategy of financing LONG/FOREVER WARS (LONG WAR = desirable for the Atlanticist strategists/SHORT WAR to settle matters quickly, for the "encircled/encroached upon" on the "inside lines" of Europe historically, or Eurasia today and as desirable strategy). This is an example of history rhyming, for those with the geopolitical/grand strategic insight. We, the current generation, are literally watching on as "history rhymes."
    1
  766.  @StevePowell-p9f  From wiki (sources are listed there): Actual objective of the Vietnam War: Containment of China Main article: China containment policy As laid out by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the Chinese containment policy of the United States was a long-run strategic effort to surround Beijing with the USSR, its satellite states, as well as: The Japan–Korea front, The India–Pakistan front, and The Southeast Asia front Although President Johnson stated that the aim of the Vietnam War was to secure an "independent, non-Communist South Vietnam", a January 1965 memorandum by Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton stated that an underlying justification was "not to help friend, but to contain China".[22][23][24] On November 3, 1965, Secretary of Defense McNamara sent a memorandum to Johnson, in which he explained the "major policy decisions with respect to our course of action in Vietnam". The memorandum begins by disclosing the rationale behind the bombing of North Vietnam in February 1965: The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain China.[25] McNamara accused China of harboring imperial aspirations like those of the German Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the Soviet Union. According to McNamara, the Chinese were conspiring to "organize all of Asia" against the United States: China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30s, and like the USSR in 1947—looms as a major power threatening to undercut our importance and effectiveness in the world and, more remotely but more menacingly, to organize all of Asia against us.[25] To encircle the Chinese, the United States aimed to establish "three fronts" as part of a "long-run effort to contain China": There are three fronts to a long-run effort to contain China (realizing that the USSR "contains" China on the north and northwest): (a) the Japan–Korea front; (b) the India–Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.[25] However, McNamara admitted that the containment of China would ultimately sacrifice a significant amount of America's time, money and lives.[25]
    1
  767.  @StevePowell-p9f  Yes, we can disagree about everything but not a "date" or a "timeline." 1965, when the decision was made to "contain China" clearly comes long before Beijing's answer to the containment.
    1
  768. "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X The picture he painted, is faaaaaar bigger than that. If you're not careful, the entire apparatus steered by the global elites will have you hating the people who are being ideologically encircled and divided, and loving the people who are doing the ideological encircling and dividing... Search the term ideology in a dictionary. It is a noun, and a defined term. It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. Like the ideology of democracy. YES, believe it or not, what YOU believe in, is an ideology. Similar to this concept are systems of beliefs, systems of ideas, and systems of ideals. ALL of these, need "dumb, stupid animals" (quote Henry Kissinger) in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER. They need you, yes, YOU, to lie, and kill, so they can steal in the background, and YOU, yes, "you", are not better that anybody else on this planet if you lie, and kill for an ideology. These dumbed down masses reveal themselves by the way the speak... They are all tools, of others. These power players preach from their "boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". Strange, that their Bible says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy. One of them, must be wrong.
    1
  769. The question posed to Asians (mainly Chinese and Indians/citizens within these borders) remains the same as during the era of imperialism 200 or 300 years ago. The obfuscators and dividers will use the same techniques in reasoning as they use in politics: they will "hop around" on criteria, just like 200 or 300 years ago, causing dissention in debates on the micro level (society), in the same way the power players "hop around" on entire countries/governments/capital cities/key politicians in geopolitics on the macro level... The technique of "divide and rule"... Hop over here, hop over there, whatever standpoint brings the own short-term advantage, because THE POWER has the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of not having to suffer consequences from it's own actions. The question posed to all Asians remains. Whether they can see that they are in the same positions they were in 200 and 300 years ago. The dividers come with "promises" which they mostly don't intend keeping, or offer "treaties" (in which these dividers themselves hold the geographical advantage of distance), make all kinds of excuses why the dividers don't keep their promises, or why the dividers don't suffer the same percentage of harmfull effects in times of crisis/war as the "chosen ones". These promises are very enticing to power players, and offer the prospect of glory and achievement to the side the promises are made to, just like 200 or 300 years ago... Anthony Blinken making some Indians FEEL (§§§, see footnote) very proud with repeated offers of NATO membership, just like previous US admins made such promises to the Ukriane, which no doubt made many Ukrainians FEEL very proud, and then the dividers with the geographical advantage, subsequently citing all kinds of "difficulties" why such "pwomises" then cannot be effected in a short timespan. Meanwhile, exposing the "Ukraine"/proxy to extreme danger as the feet were dragged and dragged and dragged... Of course, in the game called divide and rule, it is not the fact THAT it is a ridiculous offer, in view of recent events in the Ukraine exposing the danger of such folly, but rather the fact THAT such an offer is repeated. The fact THAT the offer is on the table, already causes mistrust/dissention amongst ASIAN neighbors. Of course, if India refuses, the divider (of Asia), Washington DC can simply go to China and "promise Taiwan" to Beijing (signed away) in return for a deal, to surround Russia. The potential for "divide and rule" rests on the side with the geographical advantage, as long as the targets for division do not unite, specifically with a comprehensive Asian security agreement. The question to Asians remains the same. What are they going to do to create a SINGLE HEGEMONY (alliance) in East Asia, in order to speak with a united voice, against the POWER of division. BRICS is not enough. Any other deal or treaty, or the SCO in the current setup, or even the "UN's" laws and the "rules based order" cannot stand up to the POWER of divide and rule. It needs a comprehensive security agreement for all of those in the FRACTURE ZONE 4 (stretching from North Pole, via Japan, Taiwan, through Thailand, the Indian subcontinent, towards the Middle East). If no comprehensive security agreement is achieved, mutually beneficial for all, then simply wait for history to return ("rhyme")... Or are Indian leaders like... first they came for Russia, but I did not care because I was not Russian. Then they came for China, but I did not care because I was not Chinese, and even saw an advantage for myself (economy) if China got "carved up" and weakened... Indian leaders: It'll be great, if WE can CONTROL the WATER flowing into China, from Tibet...such tempting "offers" and promises... "Around 1900" repeating for Tibet. Finally though, if everything is burning, divided, in quagmire of revolution and war, and Asia the "new Middle East" as unfolded after the 1882 British invasion, followed up closely by the "Sir Lawrence"-types as the dividers of Arabs". The modern day version of that being the "Anthony Blinkens" of the world, finger pointing, and harsh language between neighboring states, and a tumbling towards "quagmire"-status, then who will speak up for India when the dividers come for you? DESIRABLE OUTCOME in any divide and rule system: The dividers will subsequently have the "upper hand/higher ground" (leverage) of POWER for all future negotiations with the resulting "statelets", just like the ME after World War 1. The secret towards more Indian "power" lies in the continued "power" of its neighbors, not these neighbors' weakness. §§§Footnote: The appeal to emotion Setting up the emotions generated by billios of minds, to set these minds up against each other, just like 200 or 300 years ago...
    1
  770. 13:26 In case Zelensky wishes to enjoy his "post war" life in rich exile, he must fight to the proverbial "last Ukrainian soldier."
    1
  771. Triggered? Which man-made system do you bow down to?
    1
  772. Militarism figured its way into the daily language.
    1
  773. von der Trying ? 🙂
    1
  774. May the 4th be with you. Today marks the anniversity of an almost unknown imperialist attack, and massacre. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassinga_Day The timeline of this historical event can be juxtaposed onto the timeline of post-1917 Levant, resulting in the current Gaza war. 1) create refugees with the own Apartheid intentions 2) if attacked by these refugees one has created oneself, cry out like a pathetic little baby... 3) attack the refugees, claiming "they are terrorists." The playbook of every empire ever. Go somewhere you're not welcome, refuse to leave, and then whine about the effects of own actions...
    1
  775. The USA (Adams/Jefferson) tried to set up the first "color revolution" in Europe, in the Netherlands. In the "shadow" of a "revolutionary Europe" at war, they could grow the USA "naturally," as all the Europeans were fighting to mutual exhaustion.
    1
  776. Lies and hypocrisy are a dead giveaway of a divide-and-rule strategy. A strategy of divide-and-rule does not intend to be "fair", but sets out to impose unfair "rulings" top-down... The USA/collective West can only "win" if the rest of the world "loses" (zero sum reality of the globalized world). The group that can divide all others groups, and avoid them from uniting into larger entities, will rule over all the others. Such "rulings" like the order to "arrest Putin" while Netanyahu walks free is a clear indication of "favoratism," and favoratism another dead giveaway of an active policy of divide-and-rule.
    1
  777. It should be easy. Question: Are you here for the sports event or are you here for the politics? That should easily separate the straw from the chaff for both sides and separates the true sport fans from the political instigators.
    1
  778. Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century. The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021). This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?" The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule. Systemic/ideological expansion into: - Eastern Europe. - Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route) - Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route) Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired. "The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner"). It is today, as it was since 1776. Fact is that Trump, or any other previous admin, did not stop this "slow (systemic) march". Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemon.
    1
  779. Advocates defending their systemic greed, trying to hide behind "good deeds," are usually easily exposed: they utter fallacies like "defending (superior) Western values", whereas in reality all they are doing is defending the dividers, who operate and instigate from superior positions of power. They think reality disappears if they simply do not address it. Their own inbuilt bias means they are defending greed in the form of "50% for us" (to quote US strategist Kennan), because what they don't realize is that they were born into a belief system. The main reason why that belief system persisted, was because of the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION or POWER. Nothing else. This isn't an fallacy in reasoning, or a false premise, or syllogism. Overwhelmingly, people who are born into the belief system capitalism, will perceive it to be god's gift to mankind. Overwhelmingly, people who are born into the belief system corporatism, will perceive it to be god's gift to mankind. Overwhelmingly, people who are born into the belief system democracy, will perceive it to be god's gift to mankind. All belief systems, mainly persists because advocates are born into the belief system (observation) or have been coddled into believing in it being superior as they grew up. They are defending "greed" in the form of "50% for us" (or variations of that), for the minority, and that this minority of the world which is based in the USA or collective West, 12% of the world, has the right to rule over the rest of the world, by division. Greed can be proven to be the MOTIVATION of the top tiers, even if not necessarily by all who live in such systems, and it can be corroborated by observation, a primary source of information. -------------------------------------------------------- Most people think they are logical and reasonable. However most people are not logical, nor are they reasonable, but are usually biased and illogical, and are therefore easily deceived by their own top tiers, who need them as tools to create great gains, usually for those at the tops of the pyramidal shaped structures of POWER (aka "instruments of power"). A technique for exposing such illogical and unreasonable forms of argumentation, is as follows. 1) One asks an open question, or states a commonly held belief/theory. This can be anything on any political topic. 2) One then awaits an answer. 3) If the debater is knowledgeable about history, then the answer will usually be something along the lines of the agreed upon historical narrative. One then poses a counter-question, pending an answer: How do you know that these were the real reasons for the actions/reactions? (political motivation) 4) One awaits the answer, which then exposes exactly how logical and reasonable the debater is. 5) the correct answer to the question posed in 3) is of course something like (logic/reason): "I personally don't know that for a fact today, but that is what we have been told, or what sources say (other human beings individually/group writing something down)..." which is then followed by the currently valid explanation for the question posed. When you get such an answer, you know that you're dealing with a low single-digit percentage amongst mankind, who is actually a logical thinker. As far as any other answer, don't bother debating: these "debaters" will slither about, because they wish to reach a certain preconceived outcome. Specifically, try to wiggle their way around answering questions, or avoiding "offending" historical reality, all in defense of the supreme nature of the chosen man-made system they were coddled into following. They do their "premise/criteria hopping" thinking others do not notice how they obfuscate in defense of their man-made systems of greed... These debaters will simply assume that everything written down is 100% "fact" (note that the word "fact" has a definition). Note that in this regard, one can prove that something was written down (fact), but one cannot prove what was meant with it (theory). They will repeat their historical leaders words, and state these as being "facts." Note, while these strings of "words" can be proven to be facts by sources, the motivations/reasons at the time cannot be known. Current debaters who simply believe another human being, then must also believe or assume that the motivations of such past leaders were pure and unquestionable. When one does that, one bows to authority. If one simply believes that everything written down is a "fact", one bows down to authority, which is a cognitive bias. The logical thinkers know that ALL historical narratives are merely "theories" or "hypotheses" (which are different definitions), strung together out of a selection of facts & words. That means, everything everybody "believes" is a theory.
    1
  780. Under the new Trump admin of Neocon imperialists, the USA will pull out of NATO and leave the EU like "Uriah" on the frontlines, to face Russia by themselves. Read the strategy: it is more than 2,000 years old, but Europeans still don't get that the USA is "not your friend" (loosely quoting Henry Kissinger). There will be sufficient numbers of Americans cheering and banner waving the resulting "just in isolation"-narrative. Chanting their "Let those European warmongers fight again, nothing to do with me..."-slogans. Just like there will always be sufficient numbers of Americans to cheer and banner wave for almost ANY strategy and practically ANY narrative. Don't subvert your own safety to the American people. They are as clueless as everybody else with regards to geopolitics and grand strategy. Don't enshrine your own future to self-centred people who couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag, yet they strut around as if the entire world owes them something. Also do not rely on the "sane half" of American citizens to "save you," for they are as powerless against their own government, as YOU are against yours. All equally distracted by own problems, ignorant of world affairs, indifferent to world affairs, or simply complacent when their state chooses yet more war in eternal cycles of "yet more war" these past 250 years. The war in the Ukraine is to a great extent a war of Washington DC's own making. Let's not forget that the current Trump admin, was the past Trump admin (2017-2021) while the encroaching/encircling of Russia/China was continuously implemented, thereby creating DIVISION in Europe/Eurasia. Whatever POTUS rules the WH, is completely irrelevant, because the standing grand strategy and geopolitical policy which has historically given the ruling classes their wealth, is regardless of who is the figurehead.
    1
  781. Even more dangerous than a psychopath who has to face consequences for his actions, is the psychopath who is given a safe bunker to retreat to, paid for by US taxpayers.
    1
  782. "The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do." -- Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    1
  783. The humiliation of Great Britain and France, was directly according to "plan." The strategy of weakening the Europeans, and make them bow down to the Grand Strategy behind... Eisenhower was merely doing what all US Presidents did, long before that. Weakening Europe, whichever way possible. "During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), (§§§footnote) the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed." SOURCE: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive US strategist in these think tanks lay out the scheme of what was going to be the new post-war reality, as a "Grand Area" as an almost exclusive "back yard", and under their "natural rights" for the USA to control. Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The more industrial countries were to be guided as "great workshops". Those who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (would now be working under US supervision/finance). More, undeveloped regions were to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial centers, as a memo put it. They were to be "exploited" for the reconstruction of Europe (The references are to South America and Africa, but the points are general.) To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this." Note, all words in quotes were actual words used IN THIS OFFICIAL US DOCUMENT, and the article and its quoted sources can all be downloaded for free, from the www, and using these key words provided for your search engine. --------------------------------- After around 1940, ... (quote/wiki) "Alvin Hansen envisioned a joint Soviet-American domination of Europe ..." That was "the plan". To humiliate and force the remaining European powers, weakened (by WW2), to bow down and comply. The USA in the west, Russia in the east, and whatever was left of Europe after WW2, to be carved up and squeezed in between as spheres of influence.
    1
  784. The USA will invade the Netherlands (Den Hague) if even one of their power players should ever be tried here. There is a bill in place for that already The time for Europeans to unite, and to create a common greater European security agreement acknowledging the security concerns of all, has looooong passed. The perfect point in time for that was around the year 2000, but European leaders sleepwalked their way into the current situation, the same way they sleepwalked their way into WW1 in 1914.
    1
  785. Beware of the divide-and-rule technique. It is the "mother if all harm" in history, due to what it causes as effects. The "dividers" must know what they sow, but don't care. Globalism/imperialism created all of its own enemies. Everything the USA /collective West is fighting/combatting these days, they created themselves in the past. ------------------------ The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... 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? Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games. ------------------------------------- The people of the Africa 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance. Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent. Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers... Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games. -------------------------------------- The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, 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. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours. Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it is the only strategy which can be invisibly employed in times of war, and in times of peace. Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war... Insert levers of lies, mistrust... Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies... Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power... 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." [Critical question: Who is "we"?] And that is what they did. And that is what you are fighting for. America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist 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) regarding Eurasia for the template. 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? That is what empires have always done. Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances... The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."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 individual 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
  786. The tricks of the hate- and fearmongers have been constant throughout history. Human emotions are easily influenced.
    1
  787. The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, 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 Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900). Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors. Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet. Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such division create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule. Today, their leaders are too weak to unite. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war. Insert levers of lies, mistrust... Create favorites: favoritism... Point the systemic 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." [Critical question: Who is "we"?] And that is what they did. America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist 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) regarding Eurasia for the template. 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? That is what empires have always done. Create the default rival/enemy. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances... The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power... ------------------------------------------------ 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, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite, or at least avoid total disunity. 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... Today, just like at all points on the timeline, 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). "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. --------------------------------------------------------- The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. 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... 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-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Same people and systems. Different times. Same games. ----------------------------------------------------- The people of the Africa 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 empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance. Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner, the intention is simply to avoid unity in Africa and the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. 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... Who wields the POWER? Four corners of the globe. Same games.
    1
  788. Like Mearsheimer, he is a "USA/collective Western supremacist" who thinks the "West" MUST rule in order for there to be "peace". In reality it is just a scam to keep the entire world "down" in wealth and power to control their own affairs. These ""USA/collective Western supremacists" always claim to love rules and laws, but seldom protest if the USA/collective West makes a mockery of International Law and humanity's collective values (moral values), by overtly exposing their hypocrisy.
    1
  789. Excellent analysis. A parallel happened with Turkiye after around the year 2000. Despite real and honest efforts by the government and people of Turkiye, they simply did not "make the list" of standards of the finger-waging Western elites. After around 2012, they basically gave up trying. What a great way to alienate an entire people. Georgia seems to be "history rhyming."
    1
  790. 0_Hamas, just like every single "terrorist" organisation EVER, at any point in history ever, in any geographical location ever, by any religion ever, are always an EFFECT of oppression._ The USA/collective West is "classifying" the terrorists they created themselves with own PREVIOUS political actions, as terrorists... Terrorism/Freedom fighting (POV) is always an "effect" not a "cause." If you live in the west, then you (personally), or your parents, grandparents or previous generations have never ever ever fought anybody your own leaders have not personally set you up against. Try me on this one. Name me the war, incl. this current "War on Terror", and I'll inform you how your own government created it (aka "lay the foundation").
    1
  791. I would research the "balance of power" concept in IR.
    1
  792. The US 1%-ters always win, regardless of how much the entire country suffers. That's the gist of it. There is no real power in the hands of the people, and the people cannot implement changes to this setup.
    1
  793. The necessity to balance power is a long-standing reality amongst political actors and strategists. The logic and reasoning fill a ton of books, journals, theses, and articles, elaborately exploring the theory, based on the necessity to create an equilibrium between the powers or suffer consequences for not abiding by such logic. The issue is not that this age-old proven logic has been written down, the issue is that one can make people believe that balancing power is fallacious, and make people believe that a few chosen "good guys" should hold the keys to a peaceful world as hegemony. What the world lacks is wise practical leaders. Phronesis which is wisdom in determining political standards, practical understanding, and sound judgment. It comes from the Latin phronēsis, from Greek phrónēsis, meaning "practical wisdom, prudence in government and public affairs". Obviously, far too extensive to ever cover in a yt comments section, but in brief, the logic/reasoning is fairly similar across the ages. A few excepts, if only from the past couple of centuries: Nicholas Spykman: "...political equilibrium is neither a gift of the gods nor an inherently stable condition. It results from the active intervention of man, from the operation of political forces. States cannot afford to wait passively for the happy time when a miraculously achieved balance of power will bring peace and security. If they wish to survive, they must be willing to go to war to preserve a balance against the growing hegemonic power of the period." John Mearsheimer: "...status quo powers are rarely found in world politics, because the international system creates powerful incentives for states to look for opportunities to gain power at the expense of rivals, and to take advantage of those situations when the benefits outweigh the costs." Kenneth Waltz: "As nature abhors a vacuum, so international politics abhors unbalanced power." Hans Morgenthau: "The aspiration for power on the part of several nations, each trying either to maintain or overthrow the status quo, leads of necessity, to a configuration that is called the balance of power and to policies that aim at preserving it." Christopher Layne: "Great powers balance against each other because structural constraints impel them to do so." Apart from these fairly modern examples, the logic that belies this realization is thousands of years old. No strategist in any of the capital cities can claim "I didn't know." Around the year 1900 as the USA grew and grew in rapid strides, both economically and territorially, which European capital city was principally responsible for not balancing that growth out with an alliance of European powers? To rephrase the same question. In other words, as the concept of "balance of powers" went from "European" to "global", why didn't anybody but Berlin bother to try and balance out the rise of the USA? (evidence for this statement is in the form if a memorandum by Berlin, to St Petersburg presented in 1896) Around the year 1900, technology rapidly bridged distances as the planet shrunk due to new inventions, and the Spanish-American War showed what would happen to European empires when they became "sick men." These were the same words European powers used to mock their own neighbours in the "Old World", as they greedily carved out little chunks of the "sick man" Ottoman Empire for themselves, so they obviously knew what would happen to themselves when they weakened. Dog-eat-dog. Europeans are born losers until they figure this out. ------------------------------------------------------- "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger Henry Kissinger stated Washington DC's policy for the American Century: "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests." That simply means empires don't have friends, and if your little nation is no longer useful, it'll be written off with a few thoughts and prayers. The hegemon will wiggle and slime their way from "victory" to victory, as long as everyone else does not unite. That is how the strategy of divide-and-rule works. In a graphic depiction of systems, the "divide-and-rule"-world under which division rules, is diametrically opposed to the logic of a balance of powers.
    1
  794. "First they came for..." Remember the poem? The poem is about a principle, and a strategy of power to "come for" systemic opposition in small steps, and people simply move on because there are other choices. The principle of freedom is not heeded by those in power, but because the own life isn't affected (yet), people don't care. It is the slippery slope. Once too much has been "come for" and removed, the balance of power favours the elites/establishment, and they can do what they want.
    1
  795. Any allegation of "official" support, must be proven in a court of law. If not, any alledged "support" is purely individual. So an allegation, note only an allegation only, against 0.01% of the 13,000 staff of the UNRWA is sufficient to cut aid to the entire organisation immediately? In that case: If it turns out that members of the Israeli government knew about the planning of Oct 7th, but said nothing, I suggest cutting off the funding of Israel.
    1
  796. Thank you. This is a real service to the people and country 👍
    1
  797. The USA/collective West is "classifying" the terrorists they created, as terrorists... Kinda ironic how throughout history, in multiple places in the world, and with stubborn consistency, the arrogance with which whites turned up somewhere to make their bed, based on some or other "superiority" or ubermensch mentality, and claiming to "just shoot back" if attacked by the people who already lived there at the time they arrived (status quo). These whites then do mental flipflops with regards to why the people already living there, didn't reeeeaallly "deserve" (sic.) to live there, and then invented some ideology to justify their actions. Little books in one hand preaching, guns in other hand shooting...
    1
  798. If one lives in a political system that considers human beings as "problems" due to where they live or what they are, then we have signed up for the wrong system, proposing the wrong solutions, by "dividing" human beings based on the categorization of these with "rulings". These systems have played no or little role in determining such divisions, which are in essence a way of creating advantages for such "dividers". First and foremost, the "dividers" wish to gain from the "division," as macro-analyses quickly discover. They once became "rich systems", and intend to remain "rich systems" by dividing and/or exploiting all others, and then simply claim to be superior because they are "richer" (circular reasoning). When you divide other people without asking them, for example by simply drawing lines on the map, your systems lay the foundation for everything following in that wake (causality). Lies and deceit are an integral part of a divide-and-rule world. Power players are the "managers" and "moderators" of lies and division in a divide-and-rule world. If you disagree, then have a look at the world around you: most people already "get it" that there is something fundamentally wrong with our planet, but can't figure it out due to all the finger pointing. That leaves the active "dividers" laughing all the way to the bank, as figure of speech. The "issues" are NOT where the finger-pointers point. The issue is the system itself, the divide-and-rule setup of the entire planet. Conclusion. When you do that, "divide and rule" as THE state policy, your own systems are the problem. NOT those being "divided" with top down "rulings". These systems then often systemically REact to the divide-and-rule setup of the planet, if they've gathered the necessary POWER to do so. A confusion of CAUSE and EFFECT. The problem with US/European imperialism, "starts" in every single brain. The following essay will attempt to explain why the divide-and-rule world is a combination of top-down rule, with bottom up indifference, ignorance, and complacency. "We the people" aid in enabling our own divisions. The core issue is the way the brain works, in most people, as an evolutionary way to solve problems. We can start with a micro-level example, just to explain this phenomena. Imagine the following scenario: You've got a big tea party coming up at 16.00, and you need your only good table cloth. However, it is soiled, and you had forgotten to wash it. There is also massive piles of laundry all over the place, so you also quickly want to wash these in order to bring it to the rooftop, out of sight of the coming guests. You get things started, only to realize your washing machine is broken. You try to phone a repair service, but none have time until the next week. You start cursing because you've ignored the grinding and squeaking noises coming from the machine for two months now. Now human beings have two ways to deal with this: go into "panic mode" and solve nothing and cause embarrassment to themself when the guests arrive, or start implementing "compartmentalization." The BIG PROBLEM is divided into several smaller problems, to deal with one at a time. So, go out to the store and 1) buy a nice new table cloth. First issue solved. Then, 2) try to get a repair service and simply take the first available appointment. Then 3) bundle up the dirty laundry lying all over the house, put it into bags, and store them in your basement until the repair service can come. BIG problem solved, by "dividing" BIG problems into "small problems". We "divide" the BIG PROBLEM with our own "rulings" and thereby solve the problem. Divide-and-rule. That is how the brain works, and is pre-programmed for logic problem-solving, and is at the core of human co-operation as systems too. Why is this problematic when dealing with human systems? Because we can see the merits of such an approach, when "dealing with" inanimate problems like inappropriate timing for a broken washing machine. However, if we are not careful, our brain starts "seeing" other human beings as inanimate entities and "problems" which need to be "solved" top-down by way of our own political systems we had signed up for. Mostly, in the overwhelming number of cases, it is simply that system we are born into. Very few can break free of the systems they were born into, for various reasons. The overwhelming number of human beings anywhere on the planet are completely unaware of the "groaning/squeaking" issues in these systems of human cooperation (politics), specifically if things are running sort of OK-ish, accompanied by a "little groaning/squeaking" but the job is being done. When suddenly faced with a BIG PROBLEM however, because of ignoring long-standing problems and issues, most people in their ingroups do NOT think for themselves, because just like with the "broken washing machine" they lack the specific skills to cope, and deal with it, and have to start trusting the opinions and analyses of other human beings. Most people, esp. those living in the USA/collective West & friends, usually the richest systems on the planet, are easily deceived into thinking along following lines: "These global problems need to be solved by OUR (ingroup) systems, because only OUR (ingroup) systems are superior and have seen the light. The OTHERS (outgroups) are the dark side, because they create problems." In almost every case, fallacies in reasoning and logical errors come into play, based on the cognitive biases inherent in all human beings. Human beings start creating ingroups and the entity with the biggest competitive advantage will start "ruling" over those who failed to create an equilibrium BEFORE the imbalance started becoming problematic. AT THE CORE: Divide-and-rule creates its own causal effects, when the divided resist, and create rebel alliances.
    1
  799. The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, 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 Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900). Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors. Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule. Today, their leaders are too weak to unite. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", 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 friends 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 imperialist 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) regarding Eurasia. 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? 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 individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves. "Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams That is what empires have always done. Create the default rival/enemy. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances... The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.
    1
  800. Back in the 1990s Tel Aviv was sneakily trying to introduce Apartheid, at the same time South Africa was busy ending it under international pressure. Of course, Israel was (according to imperialist logic) "doing nothing wrong"... At the time the world was applauding South Africa as it ended Apartheid, and simultaneously the world was applauding Israel's attempt at introducing Apartheid, branding it as just "trying to create peace." Note, whilst singling out the Palestinians/Arafat as being "unreasonable" and "rejecting the Israeli olive leaf of peace...blah, blah..." as the accepted narrative of the Mainstream Media. Israel never intended for Palestinians to ever live in full sovereignty. Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, "We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [edit: the historical examples being the "Apartheid dependencies," of the "Bantustan"] ... and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines ... The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term ... Jerusalem (would be) united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty ... will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev. We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth." All the questionable clauses, eluding reality by use of the typical vague political doublespeak, have been highlighted. Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control. What that would have meant, we see today. Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city. Notice how Rabin, commonly held as a dove in politics, never used the term "full sovereign state" when he referred to this "Palestine", but the term "less than a state." Did you spot the use of [Israel's] "natural growth"? Critical question... Where to? Where would Israelis/Zionists "naturally grow" to, if there were equal neighbours, as a balanced power, which could actually stop any such Zionist settler "growth". The Jordan Valley, extends BOTH sides of the Jordan River. Now, I'm sure that was just another slip-up too, of people who don't understand simple geography. Whatever. It is fairly clear what they wanted, and there are historical examples for this: the "pool of cheap labor" within the own borders, as the concept of the "Bantustan" was for the RSA, given a little bit of "independence" to manage some of the own affairs, but de facto/de jure powerless to stop the CONTROLLING power, intended to be Jerusalem, as Jweish capital city with the right to introduce permit laws, etc. It is literally what RSA did with their "Bantustans". Back then the people could not be fooled. They saw through the deceit, and rightfully called it out for what it was: just another Apartheid ploy to avoid the rise of political equals. Sad reality? Today masses of fools are being mislead into praising Israel's attempted implementation of Apartheid as an attempt at peace, while at the same time denouncing a similar scheme actually implemented by the RSA in stages after WW2, as being bigoted/racist.
    1
  801. 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. It does not matter if the actors are aware that they are aiding and abetting a divide-and-rule strategy of power they are probably not aware of. What matters is that The American Century looooves capitalism, corporatism, and democracy, because it offers the unending flow of those in search of profit and in search of personal/systemic POWER, who then cooperate with the hegemony at the expense of the own populations. For the "empire" ruling in the background divide-and-rule means advantages on multiple tiers resulting out of the fact that it is implemented (an example here, are the actions of Sir Lawrence of Arabia, who might or might not have known of his "role" in the Empire's divide-and-rule strategy of the Levant, and ME around WW1).
    1