Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Neutrality Studies"
channel.
-
In all of this, the USA was not the "innocent anti-imperialist" bystander, as often mistakenly assumed based on the statements made by some or other US leaders.
After the Truman Doctrine had divided Europe, Washington DC intended to enable the totally destroyed and waning Europeans to extend themselves trying to hang on to their empires. It was a US strategy. regardless of what some or other US leaders or historians might claim:
"During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed." SOURCE: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive
US strategist in these think tanks lay out the scheme of what was going to be the new post-war reality, as a "Grand Area" as an almost exclusive "back yard", and under their "natural rights" for the USA to control. Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The more industrial countries were to be guided as "great workshops". Those who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (would now be working under US supervision and finance). More, undeveloped regions were to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial centers, as a memo put it. They were to be "exploited" for the reconstruction of Europe (The references are to South America and Africa, but the points are general.)
To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this." Note, all words in quotes were actual words used IN THIS OFFICIAL US DOCUMENT, and the thesis and its quoted sources can all be downloaded for free, from the www, and using these key words provided for your search engine.
11
-
@Niagaradream If somebody asks me I usually recommend Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding the geopolitics of Eurasia, then W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. With regards to how imperialism/militarism implements the aforementioned, one can read the classic War is a Racket, by Smedley-Butler. Stand alone suggestions regarding strategies of power are other classics like Machiavelli/The Prince, Sun Tzu/Art of War, or Clausewitz/On War. What I wrote in the OP is a part of this "blend" of strategies.
One can add Robert Green/48 Rules of Power to the mix, and from there it isn't far to figure out how the powers implement divide-and-rule on multiple tiers: from domestic politics, and societies, in corporations, within local municipal councils, etc., etc., all the way through to international relations. In case you prefer podcasts you can also search for these in YT since there are several channels which either read, or elaborate these books.
Regarding divide-and-rule: It inverts a lot of the logic of what is generally considered "popular/narrative history" (or "what everybody believes" and "as seen on TV") and with regards to what we are being told are the reasons for crises and wars.
cheers
11
-
The winds of change are blowing towards China, and the periphery...
"In 2010, China was South Africa's largest trading partner.[2] Since 2007 China-South African relations have become increasingly close with increasing trade, policy and political ties.[3][4] In the 2010 Beijing Declaration, South Africa was upgraded to the diplomatic status of Strategic Comprehensive Partner by the Chinese government.[5]" (wiki)
A hint with regards to how Washington DC is going to "manage" that (see below essay):
"As Robinson points out: Transferring political intervention from the covert to the overt realm does not change its character, but it does make it easier for policymakers to build domestic and international support for this intervention. This is the trump card of democracy promotion, it diffuses opposition to Northern intervention. Advisor to the State Department and academic, Wiarda, clearly sums up: A US stance in favor of democracy helps get the Congress, the bureaucracy, the media, the public, and elite opinion to back US policy. It helps ameliorate the domestic debate, disarms critics (who could be against democracy?) … The democracy agenda enables us, additionally, to merge and fudge over some issues that would otherwise be troublesome. It helps bridge the gap between our fundamental geopolitical and strategic interests … and our need to clothe those security concerns in moralistic language … The democracy agenda, in short, is a kind of legitimacy cover for our more basic strategic objectives."
(Source: Third World Quarterly, Vol 21, No 5, pp 815– 830, 2000; Aiding democracy? Donors and civil society in South Africa by JULIE HEARN)
That's what happens in imperfect systems. Ever so slight imperfections and divisions will be exploited, and the lever of discontent inserted into the slightests cracks...
They will use the "democracy argument", to actually undermine democracy.
What starts off with a good idea in theory (democracy), the political hawks will come along and turn it into a weapon...
"Everything government touches turns to crap." - Ringo Starr
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
You don't have to study thousands of books and watch endless debates on the topic "How US foreign policy works."
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and using friends, and is hiding behind the mainstream stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others, any which way.
The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
The imperialists and their apologist even chant the same slogans today, and still use the same strategies of expansion as they did 500, 200 and 100 years ago, but are too ignorant and indifferent to either know or care. As always, the warning voices of the sane halves are ignored, downplayed, "finger pointed" at as "unpatriotic," or as being "in bed with the enemy", and many other forms of equally "rhyming history." It is what they spend billions on every year so their empires can keep on marching marching marching marching to the jolly tunes.
The systems and corporations came in droves for SYSTEMIC EXPANSION and all they ever wanted was peace...peace...PEACE....PIECE...
A little piece land with own laws over here for a little American/NATO base.
A nice little piece of capital over there, of the Nordstream project.
A piece of the Panama Canal ...just "wanted back" mind you.
A tiny sliver of those Ukrainian/Caucasian raw materials.
A nice little chunk of real estate, in the Levant
Just a little little bit of a percentage of political influence EVERYwhere.
And, let's not forget, ALL of Greenland... ALL of it...
The meddling created by the own proactive divide-and-rule strategy of power then results in effects:
Imperialistic meddling is always a CAUSE to which there will be a resulting EFFECT.
10
-
The "divide and rule"-strategy or technique has a pretty long history in the Levant, which had been a desirable crossroads of civilizations ever since ancient times (land route connecting continents/systems) with changing POWERS implementing the strategy as time passed. If one wishes to understand history, one first has to familiarize oneself with strategies of power. If not, one WILL get misguided, distracted, and fooled into cheering for "imperialism", even whilst thinking one is cheering for "freedom and democracy", or something else. Note that in order to play the game of "divide and rule", it needs a geographical/physical advantage, and POWER.
No POWER, no games...
In a more worldly sense. As far as systems and strategies are concerned. The 15 million people initially injected as "anchor state" (strategy) into the Levant, by an empire after WW1, are not going to rule/dominate the Levant.
Such a small number is always a "tail", and not the "dog".
The tail (lesser power) does NOT wag the dog (greater power). That is just an easily chanted slogan, created by the dividers, in search of scapegoats for the slogan chanters/banner wavers. It is a myth and a tool of deception and misdirection, by those who truly wish to rule by division. The ruling class. The elites, or the "1%-ters", the "$uperhubs", or whatever one wishes to call such a headless mass, united by their interests (§§§footnote).
In the real world, it is the "dogs" of POWER, who "wag the tails".
Modern Israel is a tool, once created by an Empire for a specific purpose, just like every other ME country was created for a purpose.
The sooner ALL these divided Semites in the Levant realize this, the better it will be for ALL Semites. They are ALL tools.
As a guideline how the "divide and rule"-strategy can be defeated, the first tentative examples of African leaders finally realizing the POWER of the "divide and rule"-technique is out there. This technique, same as 100 and 200 and 2,000 years ago uses a multitude of "carrots and sticks": the outside POWER mis/uses differences in race, religion, ethnicity, and uses the appeals to the leaders here in the form of "greed", personal advantages, or promises, or using the "shame game", etc. Whatever works in the desired area in which "disunity" is the goal. The example of African leaders standing united, and repulsing such outside attempts, can be studied. The initial positive observation, is not final though: the "dividers" will return. They will come back, and push, and push, and push until the first weakness appears, which will then be exploited...
"Divide and rule" is in politics and international relations, what nukes are in warfare.
AGE OF EUROPEAN IMPERIALISM
Israel, the artificial entity, had never been created by a god, never mind what the idealogues proclaim. In antiquity it was created by strategists, employing amongst other strategies, the "divide and rule"-technique to inch forward towards the "milk and honey"-land belonging to others already living there, while being the favorites of a god in an ideology. Thousands of years later during WW1 it was recreated by a very worldly empire, Great Britain, employing the "divide and rule"-technique. The goals and aims of this empire, acting in conjunction with France, tacidly nodded of by Washington DC, were very earthly: to rule, and keep the POWER it had amassed as a result of a previous lucky GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE vis-a-vis its European neighbors. For the British Empire starting around 1917: to use mass-immigration as a tool of division as they did all over their empire. Lines were drawn, and rulers imposed onto the people living here, who were never asked as a collective. Whether it was the White Highlands (Kenya) or Palestine, these white immigrants brandished their newly found power (as the favorites of an empire). In other cases (Fiji, for example) mass-immigration of other subjects were used to cause disruption within the original indigenous power structures. This power of the hegemony was transformed into pieces of paper (deeds) granting CHOSEN FAVORITES property in a promised land, and these new favorites/best friends in the form of mass-immigration would then, in return, protect the British Empire's interests. In the Levant, it was the very precious Suez Canal from the threat of potential attacks by land armies, from the north...because the British Empire did as it always did. Create useful tools in a "barrier state" (strategy), for its own perceived potential future gain. That of the automatic ally (strategy). If the Levant was attacked by a northern empire on the way to Egypt/Suez as per Heartland Theory (1904), via land routes where the mighty Royal Navy was useless, the "poor little friends" which had previously been strategically set up as homelands/states, would be defended. Of course, because the Empire cared so much about "poor people"...
The motivations for empires in the beginnings at this watershed of history for the Levant (1917) can be linked to the motivations for empires today.
TODAY
Whatever the outcome in Israel/Gaza in our immediate future might be, the dividers in Washington DC have already achieved their aim. The last "gift" these dividers in Washington DC gave their favorites, was East Jerusalem (Trump admin), simply handed over without asking the people who actually lived here what they wanted for themselves. Eurasia is divided into multiple "teams", all arguing with each other and pointing fingers, playing the blame game, unable to unite into greater powers. Today: The sooner ALL these "divided" people realize this, the better it will be for ALL the people. War is a great divider. Such divisions last generations. "Divide and rule" extends into each and every mind. Line-drawing does not only take place on maps, but it also goes straight though your Limbic system (brain/appeal to emotion) and from there straight through entire societies.
THE DAWN OF MODERN CIVILIZATIONS
In the Bible, the original divider of mankind in the Levant, was the figure God (Old Testament).
Whether one believes in this god or not, doesn't matter. In a systemic analysis, Jesus the philosopher (New Testament) actually OPPOSED his (so-called) father's form of authoritarian and often brutal rule (Old Testament). In antiquity, the figure God had used the "divide and rule"-strategy on and over the rest of mankind in the Levant. From the position of ultimate POWER, God had chosen favorites, and throughout the Old Testament (as a historical series of events) continued to make rulings and grant miracles in the favor of his chosen. Yikes, God even nuked Sodom and Gomorrha in order to make living space for his chosen (lol, just kidding). On a sideline, also the invention of propaganda: These inhabitants were the collective "evil outgroup", who also collectively "deserved to die".
Whatever...
Further indicators: God favored "ruler types" (Old Testament/top down rule) like Moses. No doubt, in a realist analysis, strategists like Moses were most likely the inventor of the SINGLE HEGEMONY as a SOLE God with the all seeing eye, to create unity. To avoid people from creating a miriad of depictions and minor gods, and get constantly distracted by a plethora of personal favorite foreign gods in the lands they were dispered into, and who would end up dancing around idols...
Poor Moses must have been frustrated by his followers' insatiable appetite for entertainment, divisive squabbles, tribal infighting, family fueds, and other distractions from the endsieg: the land of milk and honey they all dreamed of as settler colonists on the move.
THE ROMAN EMPIRE
According to the legacy, Jesus approached commoners (New Testament/bottom up unity).
The polar opposite of God of the Old Testament (see above).
Around the year "0", The Roman Empire had the POWER in the Med, and it had amassed this power as a result of a previous lucky GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE vis-a-vis its neighbors in the Mediterranean. A technological and organisational edge gave it that slight advantage of reach: While it could "reach" all neighbors in the Med, these neighbors could not "reach" Rome, at least for the time being. That would change later as the balance of power shifted.
Around the year 0, one can consider Jesus as the "prototype Hippy" teaching love and charity, in other words the Monty Python take on the observed events, or one can see him as a talented strategist who intended to take on the might of the Roman Empire. Actual evidence then favors a combination of both (the "peaceful revolution" against the Roman Empire): crimes against the state, like sedition, were usually punished by crucifiction. The irony of the Roman Empire killing Jesus, is that they later took the resulting religion as a state religion, in efforts to bring unity to the crumbling empire, by replacing a miriad of gods and resorting to the "one god" as single hegemony over all (state religion). The intention to use an ideology to create unity was too little, too late to save a crumbling empire...
Whether such events mentioned on clay tablets, or scrolls, were actual events, or inventions by philosophers to explain strategies, or simply true at some core and then added onto as the ages passed, to become the well-honed stories we read today, is not even important in any systemic analysis. As I always say, historians and politicians can hardly agree on what happened last week, let alone 2,000 years ago, or 4,000 years ago.
Therefore, best to reduce everything to the tier of "systems/strategies" in order to discover what really happened.
THE END
10
-
10
-
10
-
1:05 Keyword "Regime change".
WW1 was the biggest US "regime change operation" in history.
"If the Allies at the peace table at Versailles had allowed a Hohenzollern, a Wittelsbach and a Habsburg to return to their thrones, there would have been no Hitler."
Winston Churchill, 26th April 1946
That short statement practically has "regime change" written all over it.
That short statement also makes it clear what happens if one removes the gatekeepers (monarchy) of a political system from power, which then opens the door for all kinds of ideologues.
They thought they could throw out the monarchs, and morph Germany into becoming "more like us" (old Roman technique of power), and there would be no consequences.
Whatever they thought, one thing is clear: US think tanks who wrote the 14 Points Speech KNEW they were far enough away from Europe not to have to face any consequences should their own suggestions combined with the invariably following top-down implementations result in blowback (causality).
So what had led Churchill to make such a statement? As part of the 14-Point Plan, Wilson demanded that Germany de-throne Wilhelm II, before any peace talks could begin. The Allies also refused a German delegation as part of the peace talks in 1919. WW1 was the USA's hitherto biggest "regime change operation" (Germany). Because here is what they tell you is history in thousands and thousands of books and docs: the "German people" or "German leaders" were the ones who "forced Wilhelm II into exile, or " forced the autocrats to abdicate because they were angry" or variations of that. Here is what they (usually) don't say (lie by omission): That it was the own side which had previously coerced other German leaders like Max von Baden into forcing the German government out of office, because that was a condition for armistice negotiations to take place.
Here is the timeline of events:
1) Coerce German leaders to topple the current Berlin government.
2) German leaders realizing there was no alternative to stop the war, topple the current government.
3) Omit step 1) for the "narrative of WW1", or pretend it never happened, and then "write history" that pleases the own feelings by simply pinning the flag on the timeline, saying that the history of that event started on "day x".
In order to find out what really happened, an interested history fan would have to delve into very specific books that cover the entire series of events, to find out the details. But, who does that?
From the primary source:
"The President would deem himself lacking in candor did he not point out in the frankest possible terms the reason why extraordinary safeguards must be demanded. Significant and important as the constitutional changes seem to be which are spoken of by the German Foreign Secretary in his note of the 20th of October, it does not appear that the principle of a government responsible to the German people has yet been fully worked out or that any guarantees either exist or are in contemplation that the alterations of principle and of practice now partially agreed upon will be permanent. Moreover, it does not appear that the heart of the present difficulty has been reached. It may be that future wars have been brought under the control of the German people, but the present war has not been; and it is with the present war that we are dealing. It is evident that the German people have no means of commanding the acquiescence of the military authorities of the empire in the popular will; that the power of the King of Prussia to control the policy of the empire is unimpaired; that the determining initiative still remains with those who have hitherto been the masters of Germany. Feeling that the whole peace of the world depends now on plain speaking and straightforward action, the President deems it his duty to say, without any attempt to soften what may seem harsh words, that the nations of the world do not and cannot trust the word of those who have hitherto been the masters of German policy, and to point out once more that in concluding peace and attempting to undo the infinite injuries and injustices of this war the Government of the United States cannot deal with any but veritable representatives of the German people who have been assured of a genuine constitutional standing as the real rulers of Germany."
Source: International Notes: Diplomatic Notes, Prepared By Allan Westcott, Ph. D., Instructor, U. S. Naval Academy, November 1918 Proceedings Vol. 44/11/189
Washington DC power mongers employ old Roman techniques of power, including the "morphing" of systems which favor the own ideological expansionist goals, and one of these old Roman techniques is divide-and-rule. In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Not only Germany was divided, but also Europe was divided with a ruling.
This strategy is often misunderstood, in popular narratives composed mostly of "being friends" even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, so by 1945 the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover...
9
-
9
-
Venezuela is just a pixel of the Big Picture.
The marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into.
Eastern Europe.
Balkans.
Black Sea.
Caucasus region.
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
How old is this game called "marching empire"? Answer: Old, very old...
For the "fighting for freedom and democracy"-crowd...
In 1914 the Puerto Rican house of deputies voted unanimously for independence from the United States.
Thereupon, the United States declared it unconstitutional. Wilson (Footnote) made Puerto Rican citizens of the United States without asking them and without their consent. Puerto Ricans thereafter had to buy everything from US-flagged shipping corporations, which made everything in Puerto Rico more expensive and made American shipping companies and trading companies rich: the price was paid by poor people in Puerto Rico, whose declared independence was RULED unfavourably by the "eternal freedumb and eternal democracy"-lovers. Later, the Jones–Shafroth Act of 1917, forced Puerto Ricans to join the US army via the detour of the "granted US citizenship." Note, this as not decided BY Puerto Rico's leaders, but FOR them. How convenient. You are forced into the trenches of a collectively racist USA ("Jim Crow"-style divide-and-rule system of domestic rule) taking away your freedom to live life in independence, but don't expect any great rewards apart from the muddy trench. Even today, Puerto Rico is still the "pool of cheap labor" for their stronger neighbour USA.
"We cannot develop our own economy. In the old days we were drafted into your wars even when we had nothing against the people we were fighting! I want talk about the fact that Spain already granted us autonomy in 1897 which was the same relationship that Canada has with Britain but since we are not white, we don't count, and there are many more crimes the USA has done!"- Albizu Campos. The "Arminius" of the Caribbean. No, one cannot develop if one is in the shadow of an empire which constantly siphons off your most capable individuals ("brain drain").
Just like 2000 years ago when Arminius was trained to become "Roman" in order to aid the expansion of the Roman Empire, so was Campos. The strategy of using tools for systemic expansion is as old as civilizations. The "empire" uses such "morphed locals" (strategy of power) as tools to further the goals of the empire by giving them all kinds of benefits in return for going against the interests of their fellow inhabitants. A few like Campos however see the light, and turn against those who wish to downgrade them to a subservient status and role within the empire. After periods of great upheavals, often the results of the own US top-down imposition (wars, invasions, sanctions), many leave their homelands resulting in such brain drain, analogous to many Central- and South American countries which are similarly kept from economic prosperity by the wars the empire wages in these outer regions of the own core territories. The empire favours some, and sets these up against others: divide-and-rule. Exactly those people a region of the planet needs to prosper, leave the rimlands around the empire to go to the "empire" which created the poverty and duress in the first place. For reference, as exemplary: Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, New York, on Thursday, 20 June 2024 (available for free as PDF-file). Similar behaviour by other powers in their "backyards" is of course correctly criticized, but the own behaviour narrativized in flowery language. Of course these empires are either ALL wrong, or ALL right. How the apologist wriggles and writhes about trying to twist wrongs into "rights" simply exposes the various biases of the advocate.
It's a subsection of divide-and-rule, to keep regions in the periphery "down" (in power) and "out" of the decision-making processes which affect them in geopolitical terms. All the talk about freedoms like "freedom of speech" etc, means nothing. The ONLY thing which counts is how powerful the opposition gets. If one is weak, one is allowed to whine ones ails on the soap box, but as soon as one gains in power and numbers, the "empire" shows its true face. Camps, t0rture centres, terror campaigns, terror bombing, drone wars, regime change ops, subversive warfare, smear campaigns, you name it, the empire uses it.
Those who stand up to division and subjection, soon become "the enemy". In both cases (Arminius/Campos) the "trained tools" became turncoats and agitated against the empire, using their knowledge to good effect. Arminius, more successfully than Campos because the region (Central Europe) offered the means for an armed resistance (forested, excellent territory for guerrilla warfare and armed resistance), whereas the Caribbean (small isolated and CONTROLLABLE islands) which was under the boot of much stronger US/European powers, it was obviously not possible because this rimland (South-, Central America, Caribbean) was already divided, and ruled over. In both cases, the "empire" only understands the "language" it uses itself.
Don't expect many Americans to care much. Their life is mostly/partly still good, based on keeping their periphery "down" and "out" of power. That is true even today. The "system" trains "finger pointers" to sneer and make fun of their weak neighbours, kept weak and in a state of permanent duress, and their well-paid MSM-talking-head-tools point the way... The "good life" and the "good ol' days" when they super-prospered and which they collectively long back to, was not coincidental, but planned.
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other with revolving "patterns of relationships" (aka divide-and-rule), then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet while these were still weak and recovering from the divisions created. From the 1950s thru 1980s the USA/collective West reigned supreme, decreasing in strides after that.
Note, that this observation has nothing to do with the majority of American citizens who are just as good/bad as anybody else on the planet. The sane half of their society is powerless to implement changes, since the system is fixed in place (pyramidal structure of top-down power). I've spoken to many people from The Philippines, South Korea, Puerto Rico, and many other places who didn't have a CLUE about their true history, and how the "empire" they worship and still bow down to is actually the historical CAUSE of everything they are suffering at the moment (geopolitics/grand strategy). All they learn about in the curriculum is the "rah, rah 'merica freedom and democracy"-bs. but they are not taught where they fit into the BIG PICTURE as individuals, and as islands/peninsulas/regions on the map (geopolitics/grand strategy) which are either useful or useless in the heads of the strategists.
Today: A new era IS arriving. Millions of global inhabitants are no longer dependent on their libraries, their TVs or their own politicians and leaders, and can find out what happened for themselves.
In the BIG PICTURE of the marching route of the empire, Puerto Rico was simply a small stepping stone. Look at a map, of how this "marching route" went from the US East Coast with its "old money" and industries, via the Caribbean and Colombia (carved up on the map as "Panama", Panama Canal Zone, and Columbia) in order to secure US interests, and then this "marching route" continued across the Pacific, as similarly annexed/captured territories of Hawaii (previously independent), and ex-Spanish territories like the Philippines and Guam. From there, via the later McCollum Memorandum, it led straight to Pearl Harbor after their "old friend Japan" was dumped after WW1 (1922), left with nobody to ally with.
The same "marching empire" big picture is also the strategic reality all over the world. Into the "the West", into South America, then into the Pacific, then into West Asia, into Africa, all causing resistance movements... and now (post 1990s) ...into Eurasia, never "satiated". Bismarck, about the rich being "satiated" before the populace is "fed up" with all the forever wars...
For a slightly light-hearted approach to "countering the marching empire", search for "FBI uncovers Al-Qaeda plot to just sit back and enjoy collapse of USA" (The Onion). No, this is not a joke or satire, but an actual strategy of power. Just sit back and watch on while your enemy collapses on multiple tiers, all the while everybody is viciously pointing fingers at who is to blame. Literally choking on their own blame games, while their leaders fiddle about on the rooftops...
Me: ROTFL, learnt ...NOTHING.
In their effort to "extend" others, they are actually extending themselves, uniting all against them, and are too rich, proud, hectoring, squibbing, to realize.
Footnote
The Wilson admin used the multiple tier/multiple hurdle/multiple cut-off technique of power, and made Puerto Rican citizens of the United States without asking them and without their consent. This technique means that if "they" are not stopped here, some other tier will stop "them" on the next level.
9
-
9
-
9
-
The question posed to Asians (mainly Chinese and Indians/citizens within these borders) remains the same as during the era of imperialism.
The obfuscators and dividers will use the same techniques in reasoning as they use in politics: they will "hop around" on criteria, causing dissention in debates on the micro level (society), in the same way the power players "hop around" on entire countries/governments/capital cities/key politicians in geopolitics on the macro level...
The technique of "divide and rule"...
Hop over here, hop over there, whatever standpoint brings the own short-term advantage, because THE POWER has the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of not having to suffer consequences from it's own actions.
The question posed to all Asians remains.
Whether they can see that they are in the same positions they were in 200 and 300 years ago.
The dividers come with "promises" which they mostly don't intend keeping, or offer "treaties" (in which these dividers themselves hold the geographical advantage of distance), make all kinds of excuses why the dividers don't keep their promises, or why the dividers don't suffer the same percentage of harmfull effects in times of crisis/war as the "chosen ones". These promises are very enticing to power players, and offer the prospect of glory and achievement to the side the promises are made to...
Anthony Blinken making some Indians FEEL***(see footnote) very proud with repeated offers of NATO membership, just like previous US admins made such promises to the Ukriane, which no doubt made many Ukrainians FEEL very proud, and then the dividers with the geographical advantage, subsequently citing all kinds of "difficulties" why such "pwomises" then cannot be effected in a short timespan.
Meanwhile, exposing the "Ukraine"/proxy to extreme danger as the feet were dragged and dragged and dragged...
Of course, in the game called divide and rule, it is not the fact THAT it is a ridiculous offer, in view of recent events in the Ukraine exposing the danger of such folly, but rather the fact THAT such an offer is repeated. The fact THAT the offer is on the table, already causes mistrust/dissention amongst ASIAN neighbors.
Of course, if India refuses, the divider (of Asia), Washington DC can simply go to China and "promise Taiwan" to Beijing (signed away) in return for a deal, to surround Russia. The potential for "divide and rule" rests on the side with the geographical advantage, as long as the targets for division do not unite, specifically with a comprehensive Asian security agreement.
The question to Asians remains the same.
What are they going to do to create a SINGLE HEGEMONY (alliance) in East Asia, in order to speak with a united voice, against the POWER of division.
BRICS is not enough.
Any other deal or treaty, or even the "UN's" laws and the "rules based order" cannot stand up to the POWER of divide and rule.
It needs a comprehensive security agreement for all of those in the FRACTURE ZONE 4 (stretching from North Pole, via Japan, Taiwan, through Thailand, the Indian subcontinent, towards the Middle East).
If no comprehensive security agreement is achieved, mutually beneficial for all, then simply wait for history to return ("rhyme")...
Or are Indian leaders like... first they came for Russia, but I did not care because I was not Russian. Then they came for China, but I did not care because I was not Chinese, and even saw an advantage for myself (economy) if China got "carved up" and weakened...
Indian leaders: It'll be great, if WE can CONTROL the WATER flowing into China, from Tibet...such tempting "offers" and promises...
"Around 1900" repeating for Tibet.
Finally though, if everything is burning, divided, in quagmire of revolution and war, and Asia the "new Middle East" (as unfolded after the 1882 British invasion, followed closely by "Sir Lawrance the divider of Arabs"-style Lordships), finger pointing, and harsh language in the neighboring state, then who will speak up for India when the dividers come for you?
DESIRABLE OUTCOME in any divide and rule system: The dividers will subsequently have the "upper hand/higher ground" (leverage) of POWER for all future negotiations with the resulting "statelets".
The secret towards more Indian "power" lies in the continued "power" of its neighbors, not these neighbors' weakness.
* The appeal to emotion
9
-
9
-
The necessity to balance power is a long-standing reality amongst political actors and strategists. The logic and reasoning fill a ton of books, journals, theses, and articles, elaborately exploring the theory, based on the necessity to create an equilibrium between the powers or suffer consequences for not abiding by such logic. The issue is not that this age-old proven logic has been written down, the issue is that one can make people believe that balancing power is fallacious, and make people believe that a few chosen "good guys" should hold the keys to a peaceful world as hegemony. A few examples are in a footnote.
What the world, and specifically Europe, lacks is wise practical leaders. Phronesis which is wisdom in determining political standards, practical understanding, and sound judgment. It comes from the Latin phronēsis, from Greek phrónēsis, meaning "practical wisdom, prudence in government and public affairs".
Around the year 1900, technology rapidly bridged distances as the planet shrunk due to new inventions, and the Spanish-American War showed what would happen to European empires when they became "sick men." These were the same words European powers used to mock their own neighbours in the "Old World", as they greedily carved out little chunks of the "sick man" Ottoman Empire for themselves, so they obviously knew what would happen to themselves when they weakened. Dog-eat-dog.
Europeans are born losers as long as they remain divided, until they figure this out.
Note here, a little detail most cannot see because of their compartmentalized brains: BOTH the Ukraine and Russia are in Europe, and Russia is also in Eurasia.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures" (see the recent WH exchange). This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021). All under the narrative of the marching being "voluntary (state sovereignty) actions" by the new best fwiends...
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Henry Kissinger stated Washington DC's policy for the American Century: "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests." That simply means empires don't have friends, and if your little nation is no longer useful, it'll be written off with a few thoughts and prayers. The hegemon will wiggle and slime their way from "victory" to victory, as long as everyone else does not unite. That is how the strategy of divide-and-rule works.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and using friends, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others.
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
Washington DC and "American interests" have already "won". See Nordstream: American corporations buying up the ruins, pivoting to Russia, and when the "peace" is reinstated in some future, a US corporation will own the infrastructure, siphon off profit as middleman, and Washington DC will CONTROL this future resource flow into Europe de facto and de jure...
In a graphic depiction of systems the "divide-and-rule"-world under which division rules, is diametrically opposed to the logic of a balance of powers.
--------------------------------------
Footnote:
Nicholas Spykman: "...political equilibrium is neither a gift of the gods nor an inherently stable condition. It results from the active intervention of man, from the operation of political forces. States cannot afford to wait passively for the happy time when a miraculously achieved balance of power will bring peace and security. If they wish to survive, they must be willing to go to war to preserve a balance against the growing hegemonic power of the period."
An American, perfectly explaining, in the "nutshell" why "WW1 and WW2" came about, and why Europeans are "divided eternal fools" until they figure this one out.
John Mearsheimer: "...status quo powers are rarely found in world politics, because the international system creates powerful incentives for states to look for opportunities to gain power at the expense of rivals, and to take advantage of those situations when the benefits outweigh the costs."
Trump America wants to gut the losers Ukraine, like Christmas turkey, because they failed in "extending Russia" and are now weak enough to become "corporate lunch" (see "blink blink Blinken" quote a few months ago about "lunchtime" and what happens if "you are not at the table").
Kenneth Waltz: "As nature abhors a vacuum, so international politics abhors unbalanced power."
War is a great way to create "vacuums". Once war creates a vacuum, it can be "filled" (power).
Hans Morgenthau: "The aspiration for power on the part of several nations, each trying either to maintain or overthrow the status quo, leads of necessity, to a configuration that is called the balance of power and to policies that aim at preserving it."
It is those who practice DIVIDE AND RULE who abhor the status quo, and wish to change it.
Christopher Layne: "Great powers balance against each other because structural constraints impel them to do so."
Apart from these fairly modern examples, the logic that belies this realization is thousands of years old.
No strategist in any of the capital cities can claim "I didn't know."
9
-
8
-
The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
This is the theory.
According to the scientific process, these proclaimed "rules" must now be countered, by trying to find exceptions to these two rules.
According to the concept of "meaning of words" all exceptions to the rules which have been proclaimed, must be questioned: does this war for which the foundation was lain, or the war which was instigated, not avoided, "false flagged" into being, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, lead to disunity in another region of the planet (another continent). The theory, as stated by the words used, is not interested in anything else. It can either be falsified or it cannot.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power.
In a nutshell: Implement and fund delusional propaganda games. Nothing of substance, with the implemented events often the exact opposite of the the loudly proclaimed "values". In the background, keep other systems either down or out of the own systems of gain and luxury life, on ALL tiers, often by force, coercion, or at gunpoint, if it cannot be bought or corrupted, all accompanied by continuous flurry of words without meaning, spread by the exact systems which gain from keeping everything the way it is (a "divide and rule"-setup of the world).
That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power).
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
The intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia (which incl. the ME), in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this desirable disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
8
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."[end of]
America's allies and foes in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
Set up European and Eurasian nations against each other.
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Brzinzki (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
8
-
"(Eternal) war is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." - 1984 (see footnote).
We in the West have allowed ourselves to be lied into this easily avoidable war (Ukraine), through our ignorance, and we are enslaved by the taxes we pay for these never-ending eternal wars. Because in the next war set up by the dividers of the world, from their assumed GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER, it does not matter "who is right" and it does not even matter "who is left," loosely quoting Churchill, but rather in what state the leftovers are going to be in.
"The problem isn't a lack of money food water or land [edit: resources]. The problem is that you've given control of these things to a group of greedy psychopaths who care more about maintaining their own power than helping mankind [edit: corporations/globalists]." - Bill Hicks
The people who pull your strings, can make you deny things that can be proven, by simple observation.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"If the USA gets a cold, the rest of the world gets the flu".
GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Honestly, what more is there to say?
USA: "If I get a cold, the rest of the world is going to suffer worse." This must be the most pathetic acknowledgement of subjection I've read my entire life. If your global neighbor gets an economic "cold" and you can't simply send them a get well soon card and continue with your own life unaffected, you are already in an internationalist/globalist entanglement.
If the USA votes, the rest of the world looks on in awe and anticipation (2024).
GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Honestly, what more is there to say?
USA: "If Americans vote an imperialist into office, the rest of the world is going to have to deal with it." This must be the most pathetic acknowledgement of subjection I've read my entire life. If your global neighbor votes in an imperialist and a convicted slimeball into office, and you can't simply send them an "oh what a pity"-look on your face and continue with your own life unaffected, safely assured because there is a GLOBAL BALANCE OF POWER, you are already in a globalist entanglement.
Analysts should stop calling out strategies for what they are, and not claiming they are "mistakes."
If you have a geographical advantage, you don't make "mistakes" or one isn't simply a "hypocrite" but one actually implements a strategy of power, which are old proven Roman strategies.
These hypocrites face no disadvantages from being a hypocrite. It is a concerted effort of imperialism as practiced since ancient times, called divide and rule. The strategy can be proven, by observation.
This is divide and rule.
One squeezes out the alphas of another system, one slow step at a time. The March Route of the empire over time.
When there is a response, blame the side being encroached upon, and use any action by the other side as excuse for further encroachment or escalation. Can be plotted on a map.
Others take the disadvantages, leaving the side in the position of power to sweep in and gain advantages. The proxy, the age-old tool.
Ukraine/2022: A war that was NOT AVOIDED for precisely this aim: 1) get others to fight and die, 2) keep Eurasia divided.
What makes anybody think the USA wants to win in the Ukraine? It is not about winning but about division, and control. Control means the ability to siphon off enormous gains. According to the USA's long-term goals, there must be inequality in the world which favors the USA, and everybody else must bow down to the imperialist overlords of Washington DC when they come to "twist arms" (President Obama) to "do as we say." And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today. The peoples of Eurasia are still being turned against each other and then burned to ensure that this inequality remains. This is how "divide and rule/conquer" is implemented.
"Never argue with fools. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ― Mark Twain.
Me: "Never argue with imperialist/globalist tools. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with inexperience/naivety."
Don't expect the greedy to EVER change. Those who wish to gobble up the lions share of the world's resources, in the divide and rule setup, and think they have a "right" to these riches...
"The measure of intelligence is the ability to change." - Albert Einstein
If one cannot acknowledge what happened in the past, one cannot intelligently change in the present.
In order to save the future, we must first re-write the past.
The key to a better future, is to undo the lies and misdirection of the past.
Again, the point is clear.
Or at least, it should be.
Create a balance of powers on all tiers right up to the top tier, to balance these systems of greed out.
You (personally) will be safest, if their pschopaths and tools of the outgroup, are balanced out by our (ingroup) pschopaths and tools.
Our own psychos were never "better" than others, but simply had a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER which was employed to the own advantage.
Balance these slimy systems out, because if not there will be consequences.
This is not about history, because one cannot change the past: it is about learning lessons for the present.
The lesson of history is clear: do not argue with all types of elitists, finger-waging fools, people who think "50% of the wealth" of the world must be theirs (then allow their "below IQ ranters" to make fun of the people their systems keep "down" in the divide and rule setup, and "out" of the reach of wealth), psychos and their apologists, and all other types of systemic "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbing, carniverous" (Thomas Jefferson about the tools of imperialism).
Balance them out with an equal power. We'll see if the rising powers in East Asia, and Africa, are going to be wiser than Europeans while these "dividers" and their tools keep on turning up at their front doors, again and again.
Europeans have already failed to balance power three times.
1) around 1900
2) just after WW1
3) around 2000
(footnote)
"Allowing for the book, after all, being a parody, something like 1984 could actually happen. This is the direction the world is going in at the present time. In our world, there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. ... Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who’s helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever. The moral to be drawn from this dangerous nightmare situation is a simple one: don’t let it happen. It depends on you." - George Orwell
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a "bark" by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War). Moscow was tacidly nodding off the observed reality, without too much interverence at this point in time, since gaining full spectrum domination in Eastern Europe was more important at the time.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
§§§footnote
The concept of the "straight out lie" is related to a variety of other terms within the spectrum of "political techniques," commonly defined as "strategic ambiguity;" and/or incl. such concepts as "lying by omitting," misdirection, misconstrued, spinning, framing, all either intentionally, or sometimes unintentionally.
7
-
7
-
7
-
How geopolitics links the wars in the Ukraine and Palestine.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
7
-
I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become" or my personal favorite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the lead-up to their declaration of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war").
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power, in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states with a GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION, and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around.
Whatever...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless of what some "experts" proclaim, the logic of the "bomber will always get through" of the 1930s, is repeated today, and these various types of nukes will always get through in sufficient amounts to wipe any power off the map. Even if it survives as state or country, it will no longer be a world power. All it needs is sufficient numbers of MIRVs in order to sacrifice some (incl. duds to attract/distract/overwhelm the air defense), so that the mass of the rest will reach their intended targets. So the "experts" tell you their Patriots will stop them. These Patriots and other missiles and air defense systems can be overcome by implementing a very simple programmable and unjam-able multiple-layered enertia-guided and therefore unstoppable attack, as first-strike, and the first incoming Russian nukes, stationed just 15 minutes flight-time away, will act as multiple air burst to wipe out any attempt to intercept them in the radius of 100 miles, and the following strikes in their wake a minute later will mostly get through. Unlike 50, 100, 0r 200 years ago there WILL be a price to pay for pushing, pushing and pushing, until something snaps. For WHEN it "snaps" it won't be like last time with victory parades, and lotsa medals...
Keep on poking the bear.
Get the Ukraine to try and blind the Russian early-warning radar systems.
Keep on "poking by proxy" and we will find out, because we are ruled over by idiots, imperialists, obfuscators, liars, deceivers and manipulators: not all of them, but enough to implement the divide and rule strategy of power.
Keep on poking, and find out that we've always been ruled by chest-thumping fools and psychopaths all along: not all of them, but enough to implement age-old Roman-era strategies of power, intended to gain for a few as most others lose. Just don't for a minute think, the default "other side" doesn't know what our leaders are up to...
Don't for a minute think that in the attempted twisting of observable reality to deceive oneself, that one can deceive others.
Should the above unfold, it doesn't matter anymore how one chest-thumps around about how "superior" or "always right" one systemically always was while setting off on the MARCH ROUTE of the empire.
It doesn't matter anymore if one lives in the EU or Northern Europe, going "but, but, I'm so innocent."
It doesn't matter if one chants "trust our leaders, cos they know better cos cos we democracies and we never did anything wrong as the default setting..."
It doesn't matter anymore about how the few survivors brag about "how many millions of Russians they also bagged".
Then it doesn't matter anymore, because our myopic leaders will no longer be in a position to implement wrongs per "new Versailles" (currently planned in Switzerland for mid-June) and get away with it. Of course, they are going to insist on only negotiating with the true representatives of the peoples of Russia, who truly desire peace just like our own superior Western leaders who have only always wanted peace, cos they said so, and since that turned out so great last time around.
The conference is of course a total waste of taxpayer money, just like Versailles was 100 years ago (1919).
Before Moscow gets into that position of becoming carved up and used as a tool to encroach on the next in line, China, it will wipe the entire West off the map FIRST.
China is not going to stand by without action, while Russia dissolves into single, smaller, easily influenced buck-catchers for the USA/collective West (imperialism, by "using" smaller nations to do the own bidding), because they know full-well they will be next to be carved up and divvied out.
The USA/collective West no longer have a geographical position of power.
The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbors, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed.
Guess who will live longest in the "nuclear winter"-scenario? (theory)_
Short answer: NOT you (personally).
Longer answer: The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand). The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction as it was around the year 1945.
It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore.
Because during the next war set up by the dividers of the world, from their assumed GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER, it does not matter "who is right" and it does not even matter "who is left," loosely quoting Churchill, but rather in what state the leftovers are going to be in.
CONCLUSION:
Today the default rivals/enemies to keep Eurasia divided and in a state of turmoil, are nuclear powers: they don't have to CARE what you (individual) think is "true" or is the "rule" whilst your empire is slowly creeping up on their borders and spheres of influence, or try to surround or encroach on them with old Roman era schemes, same as around 1900. If the USA/collective West is going to keep on encroaching, or trying to take over spheres of influence, you are going to get your sorry "50% wealth of the world is mine"-ass fried, and then it doesn't matter how many pushups you did that morning, or how beautiful you think your rich neighborhood looks, how lovely your boom boom tanks and airplanes are, or how much of the world's resources you think your systems have a right to CONTROL. The people who gain from an imperialistic setup they implement are overwhelmingly not going to die from the disasters growing out of the foundations they lay down. Throughout history, they've always managed to pay those who overwhelmingly don't gain, to sit in that muddy trench, for the gains of those at the tops of the pyramids.
7
-
6
-
6
-
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900).
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Staging areas
Definition: "In military uses, a staging area is a place where troops or equipment in transit are assembled or processed.[1]
The US Department of Defense uses these definitions: (DOD) 1. Amphibious or airborne-A general locality between the mounting area and the objective of an amphibious or airborne expedition, through which the expedition or parts thereof pass after mounting, for refueling, regrouping of ships, and/or exercise, inspection, and redistribution of troops. (DOD) 2. Other movements-A general locality established for the concentration of troop units and transient personnel between movements over the lines of communications ...[2] Often and historically this military staging area has been termed a point d'appui ... Unlike normal bases, the facilities of a staging area are temporary, mainly because for a certain time it will hold much more troops and material than would be reasonable in peacetime. Militaries use staging areas to deploy military units, aircraft and warships plus their materiel ahead of an attack or invasion. In former times this used to be generally the border area of one's own country, but in recent wars (Gulf War, Kosovo War, Iraq War) it may also be the border area of another unrelated country granting access." (source: https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Staging_area)
In the last part, the description is not entirely correct, since globally available staging areas are not a modern phenomena. In former times empires always employed such "direct or indirect" staging areas far away from the own heartlands as points on the axis of advance of their own empires. A "staging area" is not defined in extent: in the battlefield context of "battlefield tactics" it could be a town or field for the assembly of troops and vehicles, but in its largest form in grand strategy it can be entire countries or whole islands for massive armies, navies or air forces. The advantage of a staging area meant "no storming of beaches facing direct enemy fire", and probably the most famous example of such a staging area was the UK during World War 2, used for the gradual buildup of British and Empire forces, as well as the ordered arrival of allies like the US armed forces before D-Day in 1944: all in relative safety.
If islands, such staging areas are often termed "unsinkable aircraft carriers". Staging areas are often refered to using colloquial expresions, or human body parts, in order to facilitate understanding of the concept: for example, Napoleon coined the term "pistol pointing at the heart of England" (heartland of the enemy) for Antwerp as jumping off point for a large invasion fleet, and therefore explains the reason why Belgium was created and given a permanent neutral status within a "concert" of nations, as a way to help avoid future wars by understanding the fears of another power, and addressing these fears in a decent manner.
It is a part of military strategy, and since a large part of history of empires deals with military strategies, it is also necessary to delve into the subject matter, analyse historical events,in order not to become mislead or the "useful tool" in the propaganda campaigns of the present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_strategies_and_concepts
Staging areas will be found on the regions of the planet where states have interests, as the US DoD definition already alludes to by pointing out the Iraq War (staging areas = Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). They are often located in the fracture zones these empires create themselves, as cause/effect of the own policies. Once one understands the axis of advance of empires, or where these interests are, one also understands the strategies and other sides' counter-strategies and why some regions of the planet historically turned into war zones, others not, or some future regions might become war zones. When coupling the concepts of "staging areas" and the "axis of advance" of empires, it becomes clear why British and Free French forces landed on Madagascar in 1942, in order to prevent it from becoming a Japanese staging area, in case the Japanese Empire intended to expand into the Indian Ocean. Apart from the direct "colonies" or "overseas territories" there are also the staging areas offered by "friendly nation status" afforded by treaties: the "oldest alliance in the world" as Anglo-Portugese Alliance and based on treaties going back to 1294, stated that under any attack on British territory, that Portugal would "aid" (and vice-versa), and such a form of aid could be offering Portugal as "staging area" for the assembly of Empire forces in case of any attack by a third country, on Gibraltar.
Why Stalin wanted the Limitrophe States (1939)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitrophe_states
By removing a potential British staging area in case of his own communist expansion south (2nd Tournament of Shaddows) "triggered" a British Empire flank attack or an exposed flank, using a friendly power like Poland as a "staging area" had to be preventively removed or neutered. Of course, a strategist like Stalin would much rather have these countries as his own buffer zones.
Such examples make it clear how creating such "staging areas" are a premier basis of expansion, whilst removing such possibilities from rivals are the other: the counter strategy, as recently wittnessed in the Solomon Islands (standoff between China and the USA and allies). The territories are again becoming vital in the "shaddow tournaments" (geopolitics), in view of BRICS expanding into South America, and any future potential military angle to BRICS is already being contested today (all therefore being preventive actions). See the comments regarding the "periphery of the world" below...
It also becomes clear why simply creating a neutral country won't work in case the "axis of advance" of the empires are not also addressed via treaties or accords (non aggression pacts, etc.). In other words, it won't help simply creating a neutral country, if these neutral countries then simply offer the "shields" empires intend to advance behind, by setting up their staging areas behind such neutral states or "barrier zones". It will lead to tension in the "spiral model" of diplomacy.
Taiwan, or Formosa has ahistory as a staging area for empires, in a strategic location off China. The only thing which changed was the hegemons. First for Japan after 1895, because it facilitated the Japanese Empire's advance into China and the Pacific, and today for the USA since US troops are already stationed here even though it is legally still a part of China (International Law). Regardless of emotions, laws are not buffets from which one can cherry pick "favorites" and discard "icky laws" one doesn't like: one either abides by laws, or one doesn't. The side "pushing until something snaps" is clear, as the USA wishes to build it up as a staging area for its own future interests.
Ukraine, and "NATO encroachment" after 1999:
Empires in advance are always looking for such potential staging areas, and here the recent Ukraine and Taiwan question (post 2000) point out which empires were "pushing" as their strategy, and which empires took a defensive stand.
Empires in defense of own homelands would always choose war to avoid a peacetime setup of such a staging area (see War of 1812 as a preventive US attack on Canada as potential "staging area" for the British Empire as exemplary).
6
-
6
-
The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a "bark" by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War). Moscow was tacidly nodding off the observed reality, without too much interverence at this point in time, since gaining full spectrum domination in Eastern Europe was more important at the time.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
§§§footnote
The concept of the "straight out lie" is related to a variety of other terms within the spectrum of "political techniques," commonly defined as "strategic ambiguity;" and/or incl. such concepts as "lying by omitting," misdirection, misconstrued, spinning, framing, all either intentionally, or sometimes unintentionally.
6