Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Neutrality Studies"
channel.
-
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
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Reality? "Politicians are the best example of how idealists can become idiots, because it can only be an idiot who believes that peace can be forced through (ETERNAL crises and) war." - Stephanie Guss
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS.
Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite?
Today we see millions of followers of Islam, praying in their mosques in West Asia, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS, and 125 years ago we saw millions of followers of Christ, praying in their churches, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS. Oh, wait...we didn't see it...
We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", and "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
6
-
 @stoa7302 It goes back a looooong time 🙂
The "freedom and democracy"-argument as a cover story for ulterior motives has a long history.
THE PROTOTYPE COLOR REVOLUTION
"For Jefferson, as he wrote to Abigail (in private), it was the end of an epoch. It was the end of one epoch and the beginning of another in Europe too. ... In Holland, a bourgeois democratic revolution ... who had been instructed in the American Revolution by John Adams, were cruelly suppressed or driven into exile..." Adams and Jefferson : a Revolutionary dialogue / Merrill D. Peterson, Digital Library of Georgia Online Plattform
Jefferson and Adams, no doubt the "inspiration" for hundreds who would follow in their wake, such as Victoria "handing out candy to the MAIDAN" Nuland, as "revolutionary training experts", trying to divide other systems for the own gain.
Setting up such "Color Revolutions" throughout their history, and training/supporting revolutionaries in the name of freedom, whilst in reality simply expanding the own spheres of interests by dividing others, has had a long American history. The divide and rule strategy of potentially damaging opposing systems (in the above case, in Europe), are kept in a state of revolutions and upheaval using the "freedom - revolution - democracy" arguments.
Obviously, at this early point in history Washington DC had very little power. But as her power grew, so did the influence of the own divide and rule/conquer techniques.
Today: Asia beware.
Keep a lookout for the tell-tale signs of a US led divide and rule strategy, to set up Asians against each other as a repeat of history.
Making use of the own geographical advantage of distance, the US advance via staging areas (like Hawaii, or the Philippines 1898) continued one step at a time, as other nations were set up against each other with clear intent, as revealed by private discussions and letters...not the kind words and speeches intended for the consumption of the MSM news readers, since even waaaay back then all MSM was already in the hands of the billionaire class.
A few years later...
"From the outset of hostilities, Roosevelt, his pro-Japanese sympathies notwithstanding, privately wished for the continued presence of Russia in East Asia to serve as a counterweight against Japanese expansionism. He perceived that Japanese domination of the region could prove as detrimental to American "Open Door" policy objectives as had the Russian domination. As early as March 19, 1904, he expressed in a letter to his friend Cecil Arthur Spring Rice (then the secretary to the British delegation in St. Petersburg) a hopeful supposition that "the two powers will fight until both are fairly well exhausted, and that then peace will come on terms which will not mean the creation of either a yellow peril or a Slav peril.” The astonishing pace of Japanese arms through the succeeding months gradually convinced the President that a rapid cessation of the war was necessary to preserve Russian influence in the contested region. Writing to Whitelaw Reid, the American ambassador to Britain, on June 5, 1905, Roosevelt admitted that he "should be sorry to see Russia driven out of East Asia,” and averred that "driven out she will surely be if the war goes on.” In sum, he stated to Senator Henry Cabot Lodge on June 16, 1905, "It is best that (Russia) should be left face to face with Japan so that each may have a moderative action on the other." 1994 Closing the Open Door Policy: American Diplomatic and Military Closing the Open Door Policy: American Diplomatic and Military Reactions to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 Reactions to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 Jonathan Bennett Ault College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences (pp.49-51)
The same so-called good guys of history, because for these powerful US statesmen and their willing local tools, "crimes are those that others commit" (quote Noam Chomsky).
These dividers of entire nations and continents are above the law.
Don't ever expect the American legal system to punish such advocates of divide and rule and the bloodshed it results in.
Don't expect a majority of Americans to call out their leaders for what they are doing.
They either haven't been informed, or don't understand because of their warmongering MSM, don't know, don't care, or even if they did, are not going to stop their leaders...
The overwhelming number of Americans, in the sinecure comfort of their "mommy's basements"-existences, are not like Noam Cholmsky, John Mearsheimer, or Brian Berletic, and many others who know what their government is up to and are actually willing to speak out.
They are the real heroes of history, following in the footsteps of such "prototype whistleblowers" like Smedley-Butler...
The "revolutionary training"-experts care little about the subsequent bloodshed. They are in complete disregard the biblical rule "do not steal/kill", those responsible will "wash hands in innocence", and "point the finger elsewhere" as deflection from their own actions. It is also arguably the cheapest way to expand the own sphere of influence, and gain markets for own products, which is why they do it.
It is a cheap way to aquire spheres of influence because the heavy lifting, and bloodshed, is borne by local individuals who had been set up against each other, using the emotions of individuals to create little systems of "revolutionary"-spririts...
Asians beware...
The "dividers" WILL come for you again.
6
-
You can't.
We the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Asia, Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join up...
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Only once there is an impact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial well-organized rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, international big business, and lobby-friendly Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
At 23:30
The SU and Great Britain did not only invade Persia/Iran during WW2, but also triggered a famine, just like the more famous one in India.
Wiki exposes the typical blame games the power mongers play, trying to deflect own causes for mass-starvation: "The British government blamed the situation on hoarding, inefficient distribution and an inadequate transport system, but Washington suspected that the British had deliberately manipulated the food supply to further their own political objectives.[6] Meanwhile, the Soviets banned food shipments from the north, claimed that they needed the resources for the people and soldiers fighting the Germans, and blamed British mismanagement for the famine since no similar conditions existed in the Soviet-held areas. However, officials who visited Iran before the invasion noted that Iranians were already in near-starvation nationwide."
In reality, such artificially triggered famines expose imperialist arrogance, and why the world needs a balance of powers to keep empires out of the own countries, and have leaders consider OWN priorities FIRST.
5
-
5
-
5
-
Einstein once said if you can't explain something to a 6-year old, you probably don't understand it yourself.
How to explain the global balance of power to a 6-year old.
1) Take an old-fashioned scale, those with a pivot and 2 shallow discs.
2) Put a candy bar below every disc.
3) Tell the kid that if I (the adult) put a Lego man on the scale, and the Lego man hits to the candy bar, that I (the adult) will get the candy bar below the Lego man, and he (the kid) will lose it.
4) Nobody is allowed to touch the candy bar, or he will lose it.
5) Demonstrate the counter-strategy for an imbalance, called BALANCING OUT a weight.
6) If the kid can balance the scale by putting a Lego man on the opposite side, the 6-year old gets to keep both candy bars
7) add further scales, to represent states, empires, and alliances (man-made systems) and regions or continents (natural systems), and repeat...
I guarantee every 6-year old will "get" how to balance a weight after one or 2 rounds.
Even once the incentive has been removed, every 6-year old with average cognitive skills, will STILL get it.
The issue is that something as simple as explaining how to balance, will not be understood by certain people: mostly those types leaning towards being rich (status quo), proud (incl. patriotism), hectoring (a-holes), squibbing (nitpickers), swearing (ignorant), carnivorous (greed), all loosely quoting Thomas Jefferson.
"The balance of threat theory is an offshoot of neorealism, coined in 1985 by Stephen M. Walt in an attempt to explain why balancing against rising hegemons has not always been consistent in history. In contrast to traditional balance of power theorists, Walt suggests that states balance against threats, rather than against power alone.[86] The "balance-of-power theory is not wrong; it is merely incomplete. Power is one of the factors that affect the propensity to balance, although it is not the only one nor always the most important." The theory acknowledges that power is an extremely important factor in the level of threat posed by a state, but also includes geographic proximity, offensive capabilities, and perceived intentions." (Wiki)
"In 1826, George Canning "called the new world into existence to redress the balance of the old". In 1898, Theodore Roosevelt found that the United States had become "more and more the balance of power of the whole globe." In 1941, a New Deal Economist with the National Resources Planning Board, Otto T. Mallery, averred that "destiny offers to the United States the ultimate balance of power and of resources in the world after the war." (wiki)
Of course, according to accepted history, the USA was always just "saving the world." (me = ROTFL)
"Eventually, explanation what implies "the balance of power favoring freedom" was dropped by "US National Security and Defense Strategies" of 2018: The Pentagon will ensure that the United States remain the "preeminent military power in the world," and the regional "balances of power remain in our favor." [Emphasis added] The "balance of power favoring freedom" appeared identical with the balance of power favoring "us." (wiki)
Critical question:
Around the year 1900, while London still had the power to greatly influence world affairs, at this pivotal stage of history, how did the London veto Lords intend to avoid becoming the future "caboose" (§§§Footnotes) of someone else's empire as it slowly but surely morphed into a "locomotive" (power) right in front of their eyes around the year 1900?
It is not a difficult question.
If you have the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being on the own "side" on the rim of the world, faraway from what one has lain the foundation for, then one simply does not have to care what happens in some or other foreseeable future. The own side can benefit from whatever happens...
As long as Europeans are dumb enough to believe faraway empires are there to protect them, and can't grasp HOW they are being mis/used to protect the bigger empire, then Europeans will have to keep on suffering.
§§§Footnote
"In the early Cold War, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson combined the concepts of preponderance and bandwagoning. As he put it, the United States was going to have to be "the locomotive at the head of mankind," while the rest of the world was going to be "the caboose."(§§§Footnote) (wiki) For the kids here too young to know, a "caboose" is the dirty car at the end of the freight train where all the riff-raff go, where the new overlords in Washington DC intended to stick the last remaining true Western European power, the British Empire.
-----------------------------
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise." (globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500)
Mike Tyson — "Everyone that you fight is not your enemy and everyone who helps you is not your friend."
When a boxer and the average 6-year old, are smarter than the so-called brightest heads on the planet...
5
-
Moldova, Georgia, Taiwan, all as "potential next Ukrainians".
The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail. The last time the USA gained big time, was after the USA had played its own still relatively small part in setting up Imperialist Europe for failure 100 years ago, starting around 1900 in small steps, using the divide and rule technique of power and from a position of unassailable geographical favor (the geographical reality can also be stated using other words, such as "competing from advantageous ground"/RAND Report, 2019).
How are American psycho leaders going to get Eurasian states/countries, incl. their own "friends" in the EU, and the rising East Asian part of BRICS, to go "down" again so the good times of "50% wealth for us" (post-WW2 strategy/McKennan), while attracting and raking in all the runaway talent from everywhere else as these regions are destroyed by crises and war (brain drain), and as these wars are funded by the post-1913 fiat currency dollar hegemony? (see footnote)
(this technique of how to sow division, accompanied by a host of examples, is more than sufficiently elaborated in the below comments section and is aka as "divide and rule")
How can US leadership avoid having to deal with the OWN divided and ruled population when they can no longer be pacified by throwing heaps of luxury into their laps, getting successively disgruntled as the amount of afforded wealth is decreasing yearly, and ever-more divided more and more unevenly within the own system (1% owning 50% of wealth in the USA) while everybody else on the planets is "exhausted" and "extended," all the while pretending to be friends? Note that the current rising anger within the USA is no longer ground on moral inequalities, such as the large uprisings in the 1960s, and 1970s. The current anger on the the streets, is overwhelming carried by a massive inequality within the OWN country, with the mega-rich encroaching on the own small amounts of acquired wealth in ever more outrageous and openly advocated and politically backed corporate steps. These private equity vultures that were once set loose on the entire planet, are now coming "home to roost"...
Obviously, unlike the post-WW2 "good ol' days" there is not enough to pass around anymore, as others rise and start demanding a fair share of the world's resources, on ALL "front lines" (tiers of power).
What are they going to do?
They are already doing it.
Implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power, both abroad as well as over the own people, same as ever since they existed.
The top tiers divide and rule, and this functions in one direction only: down, to the base, which is "we the people."
They divide us, but we have no way or means to divide them, the top tiers, in return.
footnote
Money is simply a tender, which is used to allocate the resources of the planet, which are limited. "Control" the money = "control" the resources. It doesn't need a ton of books to explain what money is. Money is simply a tender, which is used to allocate the resources of the planet, which are limited. "Control" the money/currency = "control" the resources.
"If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu," February 17th 2024, US Secretary of State Blinken. If you don't got the money honey, YOU are going to be eaten, if YOU don't unite with your neighbors, regardless of their class, religious beliefs, race or ethnicity, place of birth, language, culture or other easily implemented "divides" such as "lines drawn on a map" which are often politically exploited to the gain of the "top tiers."
Money is a vehicle to allocate resources within the globalist elite systems, with little bits trickling down to the minions. It's the physical resources which are limited, and who controls the flow of printable money, controls the flow of resources.
5
-
At 8:14 The Maidan "color revolution" is being repeated as we speak, as US modus operandi.
Georgia/Divide and Rule
Here is what they tell you these days: Something along the lines of "Georgian leaders are all Moscow puppets," and the oppression of the poor people via a "foreign influence law," and how it is all about current leaders being Moscow stooges....
Here is what they won't tell you: That the foreign state/empire (Washington DC) which pays these protesters or their handlers, via such agencies as the CIA affiliated NED (of ex-Maidan fame) already have their own act to avoid foreign meddling in the USA.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act
What the MSM won't tell you is that the foreign meddling in Georgia came FIRST, and that the act attempting to regulate this foreign meddling by Tiflis, came AFTER that.
A typical act of hypocrisy and deception, as per strategy of divide and rule, to avoid continental European/Eurasian unity implemented by Washington DC, as it has been for the past 200 years, using various deceptive divide and rule techniques. First by London, and very convenient for Washington DC. Then after 1945, after the British Empire was driven into the ground using economic warfare means, directly taken over by Washington DC as explained by Michael Hudson in his book Super Imperialism.
GRAND STRATEGY/GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Georgia, and millions of Georgians, are simply being set up as the "next Ukraine." Such a setting up of neighbors against neighbors has a long history and it is considered the absolute "acme of professionalism" by Washington DC to set up others to fight and die, so that US leaders in faraway Washington DC can haggle and arguing how much the lives of these locals are worth, all in efforts to score brownie points amongst their adoring fans.
To "invest" in such death, is considered the Washington DC norm, as stated by several Washington DC advocates for US global hegemony.
The scale of such setups is not important, nor how it is justified: It is divide and rule.
Such selective FAVORATISM is indicative of a divide and rule strategy, by an outside power.
Whether it is currently Tiflis, or historically London which was being FAVORED by the POWER with the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE which was Washington DC, it remains a divide and rule strategy.
It does not matter if anybody tells you it is a divide and rule strategy, or not, because the strategy is given away by the EVENTS.
One might chest-thump around about how powerful ones "fwiends" are, but there will always be a PRICE TAG.
See Ukraine today, the "past FAVORITE."
There is always a price tag.
Often the excuses for meddling mirror each other, from "we must help the poor people" to "but, but, it was voluntary".
Regardless of any apologetics it remains DIVIDE AND RULE.
5
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Asia, Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join up...
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Only once there is an impact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial well-organized rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, international big business, and lobby-friendly Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
5
-
5
-
Excellent.
But there is a bigger picture to all of this.
The entire system they favor in the West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often repeated nice-sounding storyline.
The graphic depiction of Yin and Yang is not only valid about the "good vs bad" dichotomy (Taoism), but can also apply to the model of "UNITY/CONCORD" vs "DIVISION/DISCORD".
As the model of Yin and Yang states, there is always some good in the bad, and always some bad in the good, and equilibrium is hard to achieve since human nature tends to allow the pendulum to swing past the point of equilibrium, towards the other pole. Equally, every system based on division per default, always contains some elements of forces of unity. And, the other way around: systems based on the default setting that unity is the main principle, will always contain elements of division. When studying thousands of man-made systems, one reaches the conclusion that some are more "top down" UNITY with some lower tiered "freedoms" allowed in order to keep the peace, whilst others are more "bottom up freedoms" with restrictions applying. Both meet in the middle somewhere, and then try to constantly balance powers between the various factions. A "Republic" is already a "meet-in-the-middle" approach, since it divides power on multiple tiers.
What happened in Europe post-1900 can be juxtaposed onto China's recent relevant history of trying to break free from Western dominated imperialism.
To anybody who knows a bit of Chinese history, it becomes clear that our Western narrative of "WW2" does NOT apply to China, since China was already in a more or less bloody war between outside imperialists and meddlers (dividers of Chinese unity using local proxies). During its Century of Humiliation, China was a classical case of "war/policy/division" by proxy. Proxies were employed, funded, armed, and financed to achieve the division of China during the Era of European Imperialism.
The dividers have it easy.
All they have to do to create regional/global division, is to continuously lie to foster dissent, covertly steal for inequality, always meddle using political favouritism, and eternally instigate violence, by either outright declaring war or simply allowing wars to happen (not stop these wars, aka "enabling war as eternal event).
The local political forces had to compete with outside dividers which had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER during the 19th and 20th centuries. The local strategists used old strategies to try to re-introduce a fully sovereign China. A union which could be free of outside meddling, completely independent and which was there for Chinese interests first and foremost, and not at the behest of outside imperialist powers and their proxy rule and domination. During these roughly 100 years, the European imperialist powers were later joined by the USA and Japanese imperialist powers, and later Soviet and Western ideologies, all continuously using China as battleground. Trying to overcome the OUTSIDE DIVIDERS by playing the same game of more divisions, with yet more divided Chinese systems, is of course a dumb strategy, because the DIVIDERS will always win. If weak, and while weak, the outside dividers will simply politically capture the rising powers, and morph or incorporate these. Therefore, in order to overcome the outside division, those searching for more internal unity will choose a top-down form of unity, not the bottom-up form of division. You don't fight fire with fire, but with water.
One doesn't fight division with more division, if the intention is more unity.
Therefore when studying the "WW2" part of the Chinese Century of Humiliation (1839-1947), it becomes clear why the western proxy Chiang-Kai Shek was accused by his allies of "hoarding" his Lend-Lease, and not doing more to fight the Japanese. The local proxies in China during this battle of "post-WW1 China" as yet another link between Ww1 and WW2, were already preparing for the war they KNEW would follow AFTER the Western narrative of "WW2" ended, and the West conveniently disposed of one of these outside proxies (Japan plus local collaborators). That WW2 had already resulted in a weakening of the European powers, for the benefit of whoever was left (grand strategy) was also already clear.
WW1 and WW2 were one global struggle with multiple layers and which merely had a 20 year gap in between.
Do we live in eternal peace interspersed by wars, or do we live in eternal war, interspersed by peace?
In the eternal battle between unity/concord and division/discord, it is we who waste our time arguing.
Who is right or wrong?
Is it the "weak" who are right/wrong or the "strong"?
Is it some the "the West" or is it some of "the rest"?
Is it the "democracies" or is it the "autocracies"?
Is it the "attacker" or the "defender"?
Is it the "blue team" or the "yellow team".
As they point fingers vigorously, arguing their "my ingroup" against "your ingroup"-dichotomies, here is one thing the opposites don't realize as they argue like children.
Who gains from division?
Who gains from unity?
As they extend themselves, weaken themselves and end up totally exhausted with arguments, they don't realize they are all the victims of the biggest lie in history.
Who gains from eternal division?
Qui bono?
The finger pointers are at the receiving end of the biggest joke of history, for as they point the finger at someone else to try to pass the blame for their own previous actions, they stumble in broad daylight, and fall for the false prophets who deceive them.
5
-
5
-
Yes.
It's "divide and rule."
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or the British Empire's Mackinder/Pivot of History before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their geographical advantage.
With re. to how tools to implement the strategy are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..."
Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves.
Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as Kissinger implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combated by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today.
Today as we watch on, the Ukraine is being burnt to the "last Ukrainian soldier" accompanied by cheers of "...but, but, but they had a choice!!"
Poland will be next to be given a "choice," if the Ukraine fails as US/Western proxy and tool, in a long list of previous examples of the Washington DC/Pentagon-steered global strategy.
5
-
5
-
5
-
The easiest argument against the "repeat the mistake of 1938"-line of argumentation is this:
There need never have been a "Hitler" to "deal with", and a "Sudetencrisis of 1938", if decency had been the principle after WW1, the so-called "war to end all wars".
The old trope of "self-determination" in all those "kindly-worded" declarations of the past: if not granted as a universal principle, it is of course nothing else but Divide and Rule/Conquer if it is only implemented selectively to selected few geographically/strategecally vital "friends".
"The right of a people to self-determination[1] is a cardinal principle in modern international law ... It states that peoples, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference.[4] ... The concept was first expressed in the 1860s, and spread rapidly thereafter.[5][6] During and after World War I, the principle was encouraged by both Soviet Premier Vladimir Lenin and United States President Woodrow Wilson.[5][6] Having announced his Fourteen Points on 8 January 1918, on 11 February 1918 Wilson stated: "National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. 'Self determination' is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action." [Wiki]
It was also trolled as "a right" by so-called "leaders" long before it became codified under international law.
"Trolled" to the masses of course, because the intention by "the few" in real positions of power was never to reach "fairness" as a universal principle, but to implement "divide and rule/conquer"-policies.
True back then. True today.
International law means nothing.
Like the people of Northern Ireland (loyalists) were granted the right to determine their own political future. They wanted to belong to the British Empire? Fine. Do not contest their right to choose. "Draw a line" around them...
Self-determination status: Badly implemented, but OK...at least "honored".
Like the the people of Gibraltar, or the Falklands today have the right to determine their own political future. If they want to belong to the remnants of the British Empire? Fine. Do not contest their right to choose, or invade them...
Self-determination status: Honored.
Just like the people in Scotland have the right to determine their own political future, and seperate from the UK if they wish to do so as majority (free will). Inform them of potential harmful future effects of such own choices, but allow them to choose.
Self-determination status: Honored.
Just like the people of that old artificial entity "Yugoslavia" (once historically imposed top down) had the right to determine their own political future (1990s). Due to the actions of "wannabe"-alphas in Belgrade, the people decided to create new countries , to create new alliances, and to re-align.
Self-determination status: Historical past error (divide and rule of the Balkans) corrected.
And the people of that old artificial entity called "Czechoslovakia" (historically imposed top down by giving a "favored status to Chechs and Slovaks) were given the right to determine their own political future. After the "old alpha" (UdSSR) crumbled, the people weighed potential advantages/disavantages and decided to send "Czechoslovakia" to the grave...
Self-determination status: Historical past error corrected (divide and rule of Central Europeans by France/GB).
Just like the people of the Sudan were given the right to determine their own political future. They created 2 new countries, where none were before. Fine. Whatever keeps the (sort of) peace, and helps stave off eternal civil wars...
Self-determination status: Historical past error belatedly corrected (colonialism: old "contested sphere of influence" between GB and France).
The people of the Krim Pininsula were given the same rights as everybody else expected for themselves of course. The people were given the right to choose their own destiny. Fine. Whatever keeps the peace, and helps stave off eternal civil war...oh wait. That didn't happen...
Self-determination status: Not honored.
In 1919 the people of the Sudetenland should have been given the same rights as everybody else expected for themselves (the same as for example, the loyalists in N.Ireland).
Self-determination status: Not honored.
Lines were randomly drawn, and the kindly-worded declarations meant nothing.
We can carry on with such examples of "granted" vs. "not granted" for a long time.
All such examples will reveal the random implementation.
We are also confronted with the effects of hypocrisy.
It is called "history".
Simple rule of decency: Let the same count for all as a universal principle.
Do onto others, as you wish to be done onto.
Want a peacefull world? Don't play "divide and rule"-games with human beings...
If the "done onto"-part only depends on having the right temporary friends and not "right/wrong" as a principle, then expect eternal war.
Welcome to the world of "Divide and Rule/Conquer".
As long as key decision re. "who to award territory to" is not taken out of the hands of power mongers (of any side), and placed into the hands of the people who are affected, there will not be peace.
5
-
5
-
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the IDF, have been occupying this concept of the "Bantustan" one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
5
-
5
-
"Everyone who wants to know what will happen ought to examine what has happened: everything in this world in any epoch has their replicas in antiquity." Niccolò Machiavelli
If you study enough history, a pattern emerges which exists right through to today.
Regarding how the strategy of divide and rule/conquer works, and how old it is with regards to the the USA and Europe. First US attempts to meddle in Europe for an own gain (independence from London) can be observed even before the USA became independent. Obviously these influential individuals were operating in what was still European spheres of influence in North America (political pro-independence leaders, or other economic and financial elites in the future USA with compatible goals). These gaining powers in North America aimed to secede from the British Empire, and were as British as British lordships got. They therefore knew how London ticked, and what would trigger London into action in the event of ...let's say "events" on the continent of Europe.
London's long-standing policy for the continent of Europe was to "avoid the single hegemony" or any too strong power (single country, alliance or otherwise) to take shape on the continent of Europe.
How does one goad others into war? How does one goad London into a war on the continent, thereby creating the shadow one could operate in to secure the own post-revolutionary security, and in order to achieve own expansive goals in North America?
Obviously, by aiding in the achievement of a bigger system on the continent of Europe, which would then be extending London, by coaxing London to engage in Europe to "avoid the single hegemony on the continent."
These "lords"-types in North America still ticked the same way their cousins in London ticked.
Set others up against each other, employing whatever political means were available.
Short history of that, and on the parallel track to the European history (compartmentalized history): send revolutionary training experts (Jefferson, Adams) to Europe, to sow dissent with COLOR REVOLUTION-style ops (§footnote 1), in the opposing system Europe as best possible with limited means, and thereby weakening potential European opposition to the own expansion. This was by way of making use of French intentions, by strengthening the French position, which was being suspiciously checked by neighbors Great Britain, Prussia, etc...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batavian_Republic
These French ambitions here, aided along by whatever powers the still largely powerless fledgling USA could muster (quote): "In early 1795, intervention by the French Republic led to the downfall of the old Dutch Republic. The new Republic enjoyed widespread support from the Dutch populace and was the product of a genuine popular revolution. However, it was founded with the armed support of the French revolutionary forces. The Batavian Republic became a client state, the first of the "sister-republics", and later part of the French Empire of Napoleon. Its politics were deeply influenced by the French, who supported no fewer than three coups d'état to bring the different political factions to power that France favored at different moments in its own political development..."
A COLOR REVOLUTION 1.0.
It was in these political waters that Jefferson and Adams subsequently swam like fish, as explained in the footnote...
What weight such actions by such power players carried in dividing Europeans at the time (late 18th century) is irrelevant. What role it played in creating a more powerful France, to "extend London/British Empire", equally so.
It is in studying the events themselves that the pattern or strategy emerges.
After their own independence (1776), achieved by operating in the shadows cast by Paris' unfolding ambitions for the French Empire in Europe, the power players in North America instigated the step 1) of achieving the single hegemony in North America with an own war...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
...whilst London was suitably "extended" keeping an eye on the continent (see RAND Report 2019, for the use of similar language for modern times).
Washington DC could then expand outwards into all the Americas, fighting war after war to avoid the threat of a 2-front war-scenario for the brand new USA , still stuck between the vestiges of European powers in North America, and what still remained of Native American tribal systems, which was slowly being ground down and pushed westwards in war after war.
N.E.W.S. = North, East, West, and South, but mostly West and South at the expense of weak neighbors (Spain, Native American tribal homelands), and squeeze out vestiges of European colonial powers France and Great Britain, or turn them into "weak neighbors, fish on both sides" (Bismarck quote), in a step by step approach.
Later on during the 19th century, further European actions bound European attention, notably Bismarck's unification (1862 - 1871) of the future Germany, meaning that European imperialist powers' ability to avoid further US territorial gains would be more limited in impact (strategy of binding resources or keeping the focus in Europe). Again, another limited war in North America, the American Civil War, operated in this "power vacuum" because other European states' attentions were bound to the continent of Europe. The neighbors' focus was here, closer to the own core heartlands. During these two crucial phases of gaining the continental hegemony, Washington DC's actual power to divide Europeans was still low, but it was put into effect as best possible.
That included having Russia as the current best friend (favoritism, or an "anchor/foothold", a "divide and rule"-strategy, (see §footnote 2) in Europe until roughly the late-19th century, and shifting favor from one to the other for own gain.
Washington DC turned away from this "defensive realism" approach around the year 1900, and changed over towards ever more "offensive realism" (John Mearsheimer) after achieving a consolidation of power on the entire continent, after the American Civil War, and the subsequent Era of Reconstruction from 1866 to 1877 (roughly in parallel to Bismarck's unification of Germany, which bound London and Paris attentions). Again, the possibility these powers had to exploit US division at this point, was limited by the need to focus on the own doorsteps (Central Europe and Italy).
Also after that, right through to today, the dividers of Europeans in Washington DC found easy prey amongst the "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling European nations, and their "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling" leaderships...
Having millions of citizens being tutored into being "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling", means to be easily divided, in the divide and rule/conquer strategy of an outside power, the Washington DC power players. Starting around 1900, they played European leaders "like fiddles", employing mainly "favoritism".
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Great interview.
Generally agreed, but around 4:00 Petro ignores the impact of how rescinding Brest-Litovsk led to the forced removal of the hegemonic powers (Central Powers, mainly focused around Berlin), which then "opened the door" for the subsequent communist invasion.
Same as the Ukraine was historically set up before during the year 1918 with the rescinding of Brest-Litovsk, which opened the Ukraine up as a "new front" to attract Moscow's focus away from own Allied invasions, and Allied actions in the Far East, Murmansk, etc. (planned or already ongoing, irrelevant to the timeline).
The Ukraine in 1918, in a state of a relatively peaceful orderly status quo, set up as the sacrificial pawn by rescinding Brest-Litovsk.
The Ukraine, used to goad the new communist rulers in Moscow, to attacking here, away from the own campaigns.
Post-1990s, history rhymed.
The Ukraine around the year 2000, in a state of a relatively peaceful orderly status quo, set up as the sacrificial pawn.
Historically, and here is the crux of the matter, the ONLY times the outside powers boldly interfered in any meaningful way on the continent, is if there was a danger of a "single hegemony" taking shape. They would then step in, using their own IRON AND BLOOD with force, to "avoid the single hegemony," by declaring the worldwide war, out of local conflicts. How many die, is apparently completely irrelevant. And in the future we will see this "pattern" repeating, until European/Eurasian powers unite, and end the pattern of eternally repeating/rhyming history, out of their own free will.
4
-
"The opposite for courage is not cowardice, it is conformity. Even a dead fish can go with the flow." -- Jim Hightower
The problem in Europe, which is "rhyming", is too many "dead fish" going with the "flow" of their systems and strategies.
Stalin was the British Empire's most capable apprentice.
After the SU's rise in power, starting with the 5-year plans (1928), Stalin intended to imitate London's strategic standpoint: that of "sitting on the fence" as others AHEM... "extended" each other for the benefit of the own strategic rise, by implementing an own "economic plan" (unbeknownst to most history fans, London had such an "economic plan" to steer wars on the continent, before WW1).
Unlike the strategic advantage provided to London "around 1900" of having a heartland (England) unreachable in any strategically viable way (the the English Channel, and the Royal Navy), Stalin would have to resort to "paper" to protect the Soviet Union's citizens, as he set the Axis free to attack the hated "capitalistas"....
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Strategies as revealed from a primary source, from the memory of those present at a speech Stalin allegedly made on the 19th August 1939, just before enterring a non-agression pact with Germany, the alpha of the system of fascist states, and self-declared enemy of the system of communism. The SU was a power on the periphy of Europe, with vast natural resources which could potentially steer a war in Central Europe, by controlling key raw materials like oil or manganese needed to wage modern wars. By allowing or restricting the flow of such economic means and resources to Germany as a result of an economic treaty as part of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact of August 1939, the SU could steer events and extend limited wars past a point where it might have naturally stopped previously, by drying up.
History "rhyming", but this time it was Stalin who attempted to "steer" events, with an economic plan.
It is irrelevant how correct the actual words were, or whether these were Stalin's enemies merely trying to get back at him by fabricating a consensus: these are strategies. In view of the fact that the SU did not really need (concept of necessity) such a nonaggression pact, the overall strategic analysis affords weight to the veracity that it was most likely stated by Stalin using these exact, or similar words. "Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible", means that resources like oil are examples of such means. The intention is gain for an own system, for example by furthering the expansion of the own communist system southwards, in the renewed Great Game called the Second Tournament of Shadows against the British Empire, if the resources delivered to Nazi Germany seriously weakened the British Empire's home base in London. By ensuring that warring systems, including Great Britain, end up weakened to a state that (quote) "... both sides become exhausted" so that the rival parties can no longer oppose the expansion and gain of the own system.
Words can be used to enhance (one side) or deflect from (other side) concepts which are the indicative.
Analysis: Grasp the concepts/strategies: the "words" are the ancillaries, made to influence readers.
Today, the "powers" steering the war in the Ukraine are the so-called "superior West", and their "values".
These powers have no incentive to stop the war, and the killing, because the function of the Ukraine is to "extend Russia" (RAND Report, 2019).
4
-
With regards to how Washington DC in conjuction with their quasi client states, the EU/NATO, will try to "manage" both a potentially possible "more unity in Eurasia", as well as manage/moderate a potentially possible unity amongst the "rimlands" of Asia, Africa, and South America, as we can witness unfolding today in slow steady steps...
"Divide and rule, the politician cries; Unite and lead, is watchword of the wise." ― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
"The rich ruling class has used tribalism, a primitive caveman instinct, to their advantage since the beginning of time. They use it to divide and conquer us. They drive wedges between us peasants and make us fight each other, so we won’t rise up against our rulers and fight them. You can observe the same old trick everywhere in America today... That doesn’t just happen all by itself. There are always voices instigating these fights." ― Oliver Markus Malloy
"Divide and rule, weaken and conquer, love and enslave, these are three tenets of politics" ― Bangambiki Habyarimana
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)." ― Mark Twain
"Any fool can know. The point is to understand." ― Albert Einstein
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use ze technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Regardless of the "system of gain" in question, which come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
Divide and rule/conquer creates "favorite sons" (as default "best friends") on the one side, and "scapegoats" on the other as "default rivals/enemies", just like 200 years ago during the age of colonialism...
Divide and rule creates dangerous precendents, and lays potentially self-destructive foundations, and Asia should learn from European mistakes, and never say "never."
4
-
The Monroe Doctrine was "divide and rule". After Europe became "exhausted" from the Napoleonic Wars, the opportunity was exploited in Washington DC for the implementation of global divide-and-rule. Anybody who understands this one-liner and sees the strategy behind it, understands history truly.
Previously, and analogous to Russia in Eurasia during the Napoleonic Wars, the USA had used this war mainly fought in Europe and which had exhausted all, to expand its own spheres of influence as expansion into North America (details of this territorial expansion as sphere of influence in the wake of "European exhaustion" is elaborated in like every other history book about the USA). The Napoleonic Wars were fought globally using various techniques of power (incl. but not limited to military clashes) but the main battlefield was "IN Europe". Here is where the war would be decided. In the period following the Napoleonic Wars, European leaders were simply too weak to protest or do anything about this "global example of divide-and-rule" (Monroe Doctrine), and too divided to unite against it as "single hegemony", and as declared by Washington DC without consultation, and which intended to squeeze Europeans "out" of the Americas in the most hegemonic fashion. Small dependencies of the "current best friends" would be honoured for the MOMENT whilst all were still "best friends", see "Trump" today, just doing their global politics, but that is another story within the divide-and-rule reality of the world...
4
-
4
-
4
-
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900).
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned against "divisions" within unity/peace/Eden/whatever, which create GAIN for OUTSIDERS...
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power...
------------------------------------------------
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite, or at least avoid total disunity.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Today, just like at all points on the timeline, America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the indivual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-----------------------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner, the intention is simply to avoid unity in Africa and the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Four corners of the globe. Same games.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
It was strategy at the core, using the appeal to emotion as justification.
THE CORE STRATEGY
For the British Empire starting around 1917: to use mass-immigration as a tool of division as they did all over their empire. Lines were drawn, and rulers imposed onto the people living here, who were never asked as a collective. Whether it was the White Highlands (Kenya) or Palestine, these white immigrants brandished their newly found power (as the favorites of an empire). In other cases (Fiji, for example) mass-immigration of other subjects were used to cause disruption within the original indigenous power structures. This power of the hegemony was transformed into pieces of paper (deeds) granting CHOSEN FAVORITES property in a promised land, and these new favorites/best friends in the form of mass-immigration would then, in return, protect the British Empire's interests. In the Levant, it was the very precious Suez Canal from the threat of potential attacks by land armies, from the north...because the British Empire did as it always did. Create useful tools in a "barrier state" (strategy), for its own perceived potential future gain. That of the automatic ally (strategy). If the Levant was attacked by a northern empire on the way to Egypt/Suez as per Heartland Theory (1904), via land routes where the mighty Royal Navy was useless, the "poor little friends" which had previously been strategically set up as homelands/states, would be defended.
4
-
There are probably more parallels between Morroco trying desperately to hang on to her independence (1905), and Korea trying to do the same at the same time (1904), on the other side of the world. Neither of these minor independent powers had sufficient political clout, strong enough industry or military, or any strong big brothers (powers) which stepped forward, in order to deter stronger imperialist powers using the territories as "chessboards" for the own games. Therefore, both Morocco and Korea subsequently lost their independence, also because it simply wasn't "useful" in the trade off mentality of the imperialist powers, to keep these minor nations independent, if they had a higher trade off potential (game theory).
Furthermore there are specific key differences between the concepts of geopolitics and grand strategy
1) geopolitics, mainly relevant in times of peace
2) grand strategy, incl. the "war games" of the various military powers
In the unfortunate realistic analysis of the late-19th century, 1) would always be subservient to 2), because it was a very militaristic world, based on the principle that might is right, and all else subservient to greed being "good" (sic.).
In a further analysis, comparing the 19th century in Europe to Korea creates false "parallels" in history.
Firstly, there was the quasi religious "racial pecking order" at the time of the Age of Imperialism. Since these ideologies would not necessarily be openly voiced (diplomacy) during the discussions. The scala naturae (Latin: “scale of nature”), or Great Chain of Being was the norm at the time for overwhelming number of western imperialist powers and their plenipotentiaries, and Asians simply "counted less" than Europeans. Searching for this "racial pecking order" in the archives also makes little sense: the diplomats would have simply been too "nice" to state these priorities openly. Koreans and other Asians were simply not deemed as an equal ranking, and their interests from an own perspective would therefore have unfortunately taken the "back seat" in any considerations. That was even the case much later, at Versailles in 1919, when all these "inferior races" (sic./misguided "logic" of the times) and their hopes and desires remained outside of the main discussion points of the conference, which solely dealt with the top down measured deemed worthy by the imperialist powers, to which realistically the USA must also be included.
Secondly, according to grand strategy, how "useful" was both Belgian and Swiss neutrality to the other main European powers?
After 1815, Belgian neutrality not only addressed the major security considerations of the "winning side", but also of France as the "loser" of the Napoleonic Wars. For Great Britain, it "neutralized" the "pistol pointing at the heart of England" (Antwerp), in that this vital major estuary and its major ports could no longer serve as a staging area for attacks on the hearland of the British Empire. For Prussia/Berlin, it made France a lot smaller and less powerful, and "neutralized" the shortest route any invading army could reach the industrial heartland of Prussia, the rapidly gaining "Ruhr industrial zone". Even for France, the "loser" of the war, any Central European coalition could not easily reach Paris and the industrial north of France. An invading army from the east would have to pass through the rough more hilly regions as later in 1870/71, a more difficult approach.
Swiss neutrality was not a major security dilemma for any of the neighbors, since this mountainous region was obviously totally impassable to any major army, especially if it also meant gaining a capable enemy as a result of such an invasion. Swiss neutrality being so durable and longlasting was therefore more a factor of "geography" and the own capable defense forces. There were no direct axis between any of the surrounding major powers in the event of a war, meaning that "going through Switzerland" was neither a military shortcut, nor a healthy prospect for the own wellbeing, in view of strong defenses and a strong mutual sense of unity in Switzerland.
Korea, late 19th century:
A few small observations.
London's self-interest in suggesting a Korean neutrality must be analyzed when zooming out into the global picture: it would have been the cheapest way to keep London's imperialist rivals out of Korea, whilst the British Empire was already fully engaged elsewhere, not only the Great Game against Russia, the Mediterranean Sea region, in Africa and the Pacific Region (French, German and US demands for island dependencies). From a London point of view, several western rivals were heading for China/Asia: mainly the USA, Russia, and France. Plus growing in might, also Japan, which all these western powers were building up in order to stand up to Russia. To a lesser extent, the other colonial powers. British interests in a "Korean neutrality" was therefore from an own perspective, not the considerations of the local Korean leaders, same as the creation of the artificial entity "Belgium" in Europe, was purely from the own security perspective. Again, this realistic approach would most likely be against what "archival entries" suggest, because what was openly stated was often not the real reasons or motivations.
Another factor making it unlikely foreign powers would have given the vital guarantee for a Korean neutrality, with own military might: Unlike Belgium for example, Korea already existed, and therefore could not serve the convenient purpose of "removing taxpayers" (geopolitical consideration) from a rival system. The creation of Belgium removed taxpayers, men of conscription age, and vital strategic locations as staging areas for military forces, which was very favorable for mainly GB and Prussia.
For Great Britain and her "friendly local system" Japan, Korean neutrality removed the possibility Russia had for gaining the much sought after "warm water port" for her navies, but in terms of land armies a neutralisation of Korea would have removed the potential Japan had to use it as a staging area to move against Russia, which is what then happened.
All in all though, there seemed little incentive for any European imperialists power to guarantee a Korean neutrality with the own power (military might), especially after the USA and Japan entered into "trade off" (Philippenes traded off against Korea). The latter "trade off" would then have possibly been the "coup de grace" of Korean neutrality.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4