Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Neutrality Studies"
channel.
-
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
-
125
-
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
-
48
-
44
-
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
-
32
-
"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
-
30
-
30
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
"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
-
23
-
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
-
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
-
21
-
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
-
19
-
19
-
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
-
18
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
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
-
14
-
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
-
14
-
14
-
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
-
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
-
"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
-
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
-
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
-
13
-
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
-
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
-
12
-
12