Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Neutrality Studies"
channel.
-
Hats off gentlemen, for being able to focus on the truly indicative.
At some point I'm sure Dr. Crosston wanted to bring up the "dissolution of Russia", but sadly forgot to address it later on.
It'll be great if you could have it on again Pascal, to get his opinion about this unfolding "reality" for Washington DC strategists.
This discussion is unlike our MSM, totally under the spell of "narratives" they thought they had come up with themselves, completely independently,
"The concept of the "totally beside the point"-debates, filling up primetime, occupying all our attentions...
The "point the finger there", so people don't look here as "oldest trick in the book".
The power of suggestion, or the "Jedi mind trick".
Around the year 2000, Washington DC strategists had a little problem. How to get millions of Russians**(footnote) to surround and encroach on the US rival China, even though these citizens had not the slightests intentions to do so. In case Moscow refused to do so, either by joining NATO or otherwise, then the inhabitants of China's bordering regions somehow had to be "Jedi mind tricked" into doing so indirectly...
The answer of course lies in the "dissolution of Russia", and the "Jedi mind trick" is to get millions of citzens in Western countries to think they came up with this result all on their own: that such a dissolution of Russia is the best or only option. And they will think so without their minds being influenced in the slightest. Coincidently, following around June/July last year, just such reports about "how minorities from Russia's east are overwhelmingly drafted", are a part of our Western news outlets' narratives.
The sublime messaging is of course that millions reach the conclusion that it would be better for all these poor people in case they had their own countries...
And millions of individuals will think they will have reached this conclusion all by themselves, without being influenced...
It is in fact the repeat of a similar "Jedi mind trick" around a 125 years ago, played on millions of other citizens, around the year 1900. The dilemma London strategists had with regards to the population of England: How to psychologically influence millions of citizens to "protect France", and hundreds of thousands of young men to volunteer to fight for France, even though they had not the slightests intentions to do so. This dilemma for the strategists was how to get people to do something via suggestion, and to think they had even come up with the idea all by themselves. The "Jedi mind trick" was of course to substitute "unpopular France" with "weak people" (***footnote).
Even though today it is known for a fact, and proven by archival entries, the fact THAT the London elites/strategists intended to "avoid the collapse of France" as THEIR priority, they knew that most young Britons had no affinity for France, and wouldn't volunteer for a muddy trench and a potentially painful death to protect the people who had been their historical "rival/enemy" for hundreds of years.
The power of such "Jedi mind tricks" can even be proven, both by the reader of this comment, who simply has to analyse the own thought patterns, and conclude that even today, the overwhelming majority of individuals will instinctively respond exactly like the lordships intended even across the space of time of more than a hundred years.
Reality: As the balance of power shifted from France to Germany after 1871, the Empire had a new continental "default rival/enemy".
That is the power strong minds exact over weaker minds.
Even the "coolest cat" (personality type), cannot resist the urge of the "laser pointer", as proven by all those YT cat videos, as an analogy...
**"Russians" or the citizens of The Russian Federation, are of course not all ethnic Russians. The "Jedi mind trick" is to get them to detach from Russia, either with a "Versailles"-type ruling, as Western leaders dictating terms to Moscow/new Muscovite State, and "dissolution" with the sharpie markers on maps, or as a result of their own feelings, as "laser pointer guided"-emotions. Furhtermore, as ancillary, to get most Americans and Europeans to think Russia wants to rule the world, or "have an empire again", or whatever...
***Note that the alternative for Berlin strategist in July 1914, as a result of geography, as the "long war scenario" as going over the own border with France via hilly mountainous regions, with narrow valleys and single track railways, dotted with powerfull forts and defensive positions, was almost guaranteed not to happen in any "domino stones" reality of unfolding events, in case there was the threat of a "2-front war" with both Russia in the East ("Russian steamroller to Berlin") and France in the West (Plan XVII) at the same time.
4
-
4
-
"... how America "manages" Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 percent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about 60 percent of the world's GNP and about threefourths of the world's known energy resources. Eurasia is also the location of most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states. After the United States, the next six largest economies and the next six biggest spenders on military weaponry are located in Eurasia. All but one of the world's overt nuclear powers and all but one of the covert ones are located in Eurasia. The world's two most populous aspirants to regional hegemony and global influence are Eurasian. All of the potential political and/or economic challengers to American primacy are Eurasian. Cumulatively, Eurasia's power vastly overshadows America's. Fortunately for America, Eurasia is too big to be politically one..." THE GRAND CHESSBOARD American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski
Critical question***.
If it is the historical realisation ever since before Mackinder (Pivot of history) that a united Eurasia at the "core" of the planet, is the danger to the periphery, then what is the strategy to avoid that?
Notice the word: "manages".
In the past, Europe has already been "managed", and Washington DC continues doing so.
What Brzezinski fails to elaborate on in his book, is that his "periphery" of states stretching from South East Asia, via the Indian subcontinent, through Africa (and its strongest economy, South Africa) and from there to South America is the periphery of the world, just like Great Britain and the U.S.A. was once the "periphery" of Europe at the end of the 19th century, while continental Europe was the "old core"...
***"Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgment.[1] The subject is complex; several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, and unbiased analysis or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking,[2] and accordingly, a critical thinker is one who practices the skills of critical thinking or has been schooled in its disciplines.[3] Richard W. Paul has suggested that the mind of a critical thinker engages both the intellectual abilities and personal traits necessary for critical thinking.[4] Critical thinking presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism[5][6] and sociocentrism." (Wiki)
4
-
Re. the question why all the observed reality is allowed to happen, is because it is based on human nature, and the nature of our prefered systems of capitalism/democracy.
All states, also the western style "liberal democracies" and "good states" have set up deep-impacting non-elected agencies, which are outside of the control of any voters, and therefore the collective wisdom and moral values of humanity. The resulting system is that of pyramidically shaped systems of gain, contained within other pyramidical systems of gain, in which ultimate gain and power is funneled to the very top. These pyramidically shaped (structured) systems of gain called "capitalism" and "politics" have the stated goal of pushing and removing opposition, largely and correctly known as being a "dirty game" (euphemism) and are designed by nature to attract fellow human beings with psychopathic tendencies (***see below footnotes).
A large portion of our fellow human beings perceive these as valid traits to achieve the own political and personal priorities. "Might is right", and "end justifies the means" are still axioms of so-called superiority. There is also no reason to believe that any other system which promises power, will not attract similar numbers of bullies and psychopaths.
Reality: "Liberal democracies" and "capitalist gain models" attract psychos like moths to the flame, and most human beings wouldn't be able to spot a "psycho" even if their lives depended on it.
Most human beings living in symbiosis of systems either don't have the skill to recognize bad actors, nor the inclination to remove them since it is tangentially beneficial to own favored systems, or have become directly entrapped by the "gain models" (pyramids) lead by such bad actors. An example of this would be the case of Oliver North, whose psychopathic dealings were rewarded by "the system" with a highly paid management position (NRA). It doesn't seem to bother sufficient decent people enough to make such "management styles" impossible (effect a "stopper" against such models de jure or de facto). Indeed, based on observation, and looking back in history it can therefore be concluded that such behaviour is only given a "slap on the wrist", and therefore continues in "good empires". Studies have shown that models based on "intent of gain", like capitalism, have rates of people with psychopathic tendencies as high as 20%. Compare that reality to the average for a normal society, or usual non-gain models of cooperation, which is around a "1% psycho saturation rate". There is no reason to believe other models of "intent of gain" (like politics) do not have similar high rates of psychos.
All empires as collectives of individuals have by nature, psychopathic and bullying tendencies. Note that the "Hollywood image" of the "psycho" and "the bully" is faaaaar removed from reality. The unfortunate reality is that most psychopaths/bullies remain undetected, and undetectable, because they manipulate entire groups of "non-psychos/non-bullies" into following them as beneficiaries, who then start entire campaigns of coverups and deception themselves.
These psychopathic traits are generally considered to be common traits, and are defined: stated where these individual traits overlap with governments:
- have split personalities (the political reality of "doves" and "hawks" coexisting in one "brain")
- they are narcissistic (constantly pointing the finger "outwards" in attempts at deflecting from own actions and goals)
- they have "brains" (governments) which control, or misconstruct data
- scheme for own gain (policies, doctrines, and the likes of that)
- use manipulative strategies as tools in order to mislead billions of people
These bad actors and deceivers are allowed "to play", to lie and deceive, telling their inhabitants things like "all we want is peace", whereas in reality there are elements pushing for eternal war which benefits the systems they represent.
Further traits, which can be scaled up or down to all levels of human cooperation, but not limited to (from wiki): "Meanness. Lacking empathy and close attachments (edit: the urge to avoid unity with others), disdain of close attachments (edit: steer away from mutually beneficial treaties), use of cruelty to gain empowerment (edit: torture, concentration camps, ethnic cleansing, etc. and then making excuses for the perpetrators), exploitative tendencies (edit: i.e. ethnic cleansing, etc.), defiance of authority (like disdain for higher bodies of common humanity, like UN rulings), and destructive excitement seeking (edit: saying things like "dodging bullets is exciting", whilst on expeditions intending to steal self-governance from others)." (end of quote)
Therefore, logically, all one needs to do is find out what these manipulators (as a collective hive mind operating in pyramically shaped systems of gain) are trying to manipulate the majorities into cheering for.
If you wish to truly understand the "how" and "why", then go to the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under this video. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired.
No, these essays are not a "conspiracy theory."
Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory.
Most of what we are fed by our systems, as "rote leaning" details, are "99% ancillary details": not saying these are untrue or wrong, but simply that they are not as important on the ranking or "tiers" of events as geopolitics and grand strategy.
For these geostrategists, divide and rule/conquer is their main strategy, regardless of what you as an individual believe.
Footnotes/key words for further research:
* 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths
* Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy
* The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players.
Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite?
Today we see millions of followers of Islam, praying in their mosques in West Asia, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS, and 125 years ago we saw millions of followers of Christ, praying in their churches, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS.
We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
We are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature.
The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector).
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
3
-
3
-
3
-
He's explaining the observed realities which evolve out of a proactive strategy of "divide and rule," by the hegemon.
It's divide-and-rule.
At the turn of the previous century, around 1900, Washington DC set out to divide (Europe) and gain (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump (Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the divider must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favouritism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany (1871), was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy), and this "division" of the continent was subsequently strengthened, not weakened by the "ententes" (1904/1907): Divide-and-rule.
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not generally disputed by most historians. To avoid = to separate = to "divide" others...
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation following the Civil War (1865), leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favouritism.
"Favor" some above others...temporarily. For London, it meant "nodding off" the conquests of GB/British Empire in Africa, by not offering any substantial opposition to the Second Boer War, as "interests" were coordinated (see the Great Rapprochement between London and Washington DC following 1895). Sign away the independence of people, for own gains elsewhere, which is typical of the behavior of an empire. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but a global divide-and-rule strategy of power: divide Europeans and all others, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacitly supported the German position and insisted on Moroccan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
Classical of typical globally effected divide-and-rule policies:
- the "ententes" which London made with France (1904) and Russia (1907), which encircled Germany almost completely by adding the oceans to the "encirclement" (this would have pleased Washington DC strategists greatly)
- the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which "divided" Europeans with a "ruling"
- the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine similarly "drew lines on the map" which "divided" Europe into "friends" and "enemies"
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
IT WAS THE (QUOTE) "POLICY OF THE WORLD"
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away from the effects of the own decisions, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[edited for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact. It does not matter if the actors are aware that they are aiding and abetting a divide-and-rule strategy of power they are probably not aware of. What matters is that The American Century looooves capitalism, corporatism, and democracy, because it offers the unending flow of those in search of profit and in search of personal/systemic POWER, who then cooperate with the hegemony at the expense of the own populations. For the "empire" ruling in the background divide-and-rule means advantages on multiple tiers resulting out of the fact that it is implemented (an example here, are the actions of Sir Lawrence of Arabia, who might or might not have known of his "role" in the Empire's divide-and-rule strategy of the Levant, and ME around WW1).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Footnote:
Note that according to Machiavelli, the "princes" connected to the land and who benefited from their hereditary rule were also the GATEKEEPERS and were connected to what they saw as "theirs." In strategy and human nature, the "mercenary" are the OUTSIDERS (internationalists/globalists) who came/come or the profit and gain are NOT "connected" to the land at all, and place their own interests, often vested interests, BEFORE the people who live on the land. This narrative is distorted into meaning that "to be a Machiavelli is to be an a-hole" which is a distortion of what the book was about. Machiavelli states clearly to keep ones "princes" in POWER, for to lose them would mean losing the GATEKEEPERS, who via their own vested interests, also protect the people who live in entire regions of the world. Via Trojan Horses, "democracies" can be CAPTURED (culturally-, economically-, politically-, emotionally and militarily), as a process which can be studied as the actors reveal themselves through their actions/events.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@the_famous_reply_guy In the study of conflict resulting out of the migration of large cultural groups, usually as part of agendas or expansion.
What is presently happening, as a part of a wider conflict going back at least 100 years, is the immigration of a superior culture of lighter skin-colored cultural ingroup, injected onto a darker skin-colored cultural outgroup.
The favored ingroup coming from outside (people born elsewhere) received land, livestock, and a home of sorts, all based on the advantage of having "friends in the right places", and having more resources at hand for the own aims and goals. In return, they become what the USA did during their own expansion into North America, the "farms/forts", which if "shot at" would always be "just defended", or "shooting back" (see below essays for more examples of this strategy or "101 playbook of imperialism" for expansion of the own systems).
The "settler colonist" (system) is the TOOL of expansion.
While the existing population was squeezed out of strategically vital areas one step at a time (arable farmland, for example, or sources of water), the faraway controlling political movement sought widespread support from whoever would give it, specifically from very imperialistic indoctrinated "friendly systems", for the own expansive goals. Real or at least tacid support for the "own -ism" is bought from large organisation, like the UN for example.
People who came with the well-wishing of large portions of the "ingroup"-supporters ("-isms"), or at least indifferent/ignorant of the real issues and therefore largely complacent, created a culture of "settler colonialism", creating a "storyline" that if such a settler colonist is attacked in any way, that they will be "just defending themselves". The original imperialist expansion (industrial/financial/argricultural/mining/raw materials/ideological, etc.), of "settler colonialism" being the cause of conflict, is simply never questioned at all...
Of course, one does not need a cristal ball, or be a Nostradumbass in order to predict that conflict was bound to take place, in view of previously unfolding similar series of historical events, in other places in the world, where people with an "-ism", emboldened by a feeling of cultural superiority, following a prescibed set of steps as strategy, in order to gain a superior political/economic position for the own "tribe" (tribalism).
When one studies the various perspectives about human conflict, one can't help wondering who is most to blame.
Is it:
1) the various enablers and deciders as executive powers? (leaderships)
2) those who saw financial opportunities to exploit, specifically in case troubles/strife ensued? (opportunists)
3) those who wished to proliferate themselves, advance personal carriers, or similar free-riders, but otherwise had no real POWER as executives? (political expediency of choosing sides)
4) the huddled masses without land, who decided to take the lifeline thrown at them, despite knowing that they were imposing on another already existing indigenous population? (chosen ingroup)
5) the indigenous population, mostly equaly "huddled masses" just trying to eke out a living, but who were never asked what they wanted for themselves as collective? (chosen outgroup)
6) any other, or a different order, since this is an open question
It should not be too difficult to conclude that responsibility for the resulting conflict goes pretty much in the order of 1 to 5, with those mostly responsible being the few "deciders" (as 1). These should not only have been in the position to foresee trouble ahead, but also to acknowledge these foreseeable events, and then search alternatives.
Only...
...the unfolding series of events did not take place in the Middle East, and did not involve London, the British Empire, France, or any other western power.
The conflict mentioned in the first paragraphs, has been taking place with gathering momentum over the past 100 years, is taking place in Irian Jaya (Indonesia) of course.
I hope nobody concluded is was about some other place somewhere else in the world...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_conflict
The "strategic encroachment" as part of such "outgroup"-agendas must be searched for...
"During the late 20th century Indonesia resettled 300,000 farmers to the restive province of West Papua, transforming its demographic composition. Such resettlement, or ‘transmigration’, was quite limited until the mid-1980s and restricted to only certain areas of West Papua. What accounts for the incidence of transmigration? Using a panel of all transmigration, ethnic cleansing and demographic change data in each regency of West Papua during 1964-2000 compiled from confidential government sources, I show that, after an aborted Papuan uprising in 1984, Indonesia cleansed and settled its border with Papua New Guinea to forestall cross-border insurgent activity. I then show that after the Grasberg gold mine was opened in 1990 Indonesia cleansed and settled the area around the mine." from the introduction of "Indonesian Settler Colonialism in West Papua", 10 Jun 2020, Lachlan McNamee, University of California, Los Angeles
According to the "NIMBY"-principle, most people actually do not care much about unfolding events far away, so are most likely completely unaware that there even is a simmering conflict somewhere else. According to "NIMBY" however, should the shoe be on the other foot, and the own existence becomes "encroached upon" by an outside migrating group (immigrants/refugees), all of similar background, it doesn't take long for the observed "unease" to begin. Firstly, in the form of lots of moaning and groaning, then if no political action changing the course of events results, the "steps" gradually increase in the level of violence exerted. Firstly there would be randomly organized protests, then larger forms of civil unrest, more property damage, more arson, the first deaths, and so on, and so on, until there is a large scale revolution. Any wise political leadership will always head off such series of unfolding events, but there must be a recognition that action is called for. If not, the series of events always follow predictable patterns, regardless of the tier of events, the cultural background of those involved, the gods these people pray to, the ideology, or the language spoken.
rgds
3
-
"When two neighbouring countries fight each other, just know the USA visited one." - Nelson Mandela (Region: Southern Africa/Big picture timestamp: Cold War).
The statement is not quite correct.
When two neighbours fight each other, just know that an empire has been there previously.
It's the old joke that "If two fish are fighting, the British Empire has been there."
It is a truism about imperialism in general, and how divide-and-rule works.
Set up neighbours against each other, using a variety of ever-consistent techniques and strategies. With absolute certainty, the tribal leaders of Europe joked the same way about the Roman Empire, openly flaunting their "Pax Romana" whilst in the background covertly favoring one "neighbor", whilst setting them up against the others, using whatever reasoning it wanted.
Outsiders will come to a state (also covertly politically or via NGOs as the strategy of "cultural- and political capture"), and these outsiders try to lay down the foundation for division by setting up the "new-found friend" against its neighbours and if it is unsuccessful in one "state" (status quo), it will simply go to the neighbours and try the same. The more neighbours, the more chances of a successful division of powers, which is beneficial to the "divider". Because if these neighbours all end up fighting, the "divider" vacuums off gains (of various kinds) in the background. Such implemented and leveraged divisions do not necessarily stem from evil intent, since most of the participants in a divide-and-rule strategy have absolutely no idea that they have become "actors" in a great game, the scope of which they remain ignorant of. Even those with good intentions (political doves) can create division.
No amount of agreements, accords, negotiation or skills will ever stop the "dividers", for nothing they sign will stop their divisive ways.
Any resources-rich region of the planet like the Ukraine or West Asia, where the interests run deep, is a perfect example of the above, which is globally practiced today. The only thing which changed between the Roman Empire and the current times is technology, which vastly shrunk the world and the REACH of the controlling empire.
3
-
Most of our history is too narrow, and can only serve as data to figure out the big picture.
After around 1900, Europe lost its top tier position as global leaders because their leaders could not find a suitable balance of power between the states, which was equally acceptable for all. Note that with Versailles and many other bad choices, ALL Europeans lost.
WW1 and WW2 was one struggle which roots go back a 1,000 years: the battle for continental supremacy between France and The Holy Roman Empire, with Russia off to one side of that, and Great Britain off to the other. This is how the quote "peace for 20 years" (Foch) should be interpreted.
WW1 and WW2 was simply another "30 years war" with the difference being that the naval powers (GB and the USA) stepped in and supported France as the "favored nation" as a proactive divide-and-rule strategy of intended global control and domination (see footnote).
In the end ALL Europeans lost and became subjected to the American Century, whose post-WW2 Truman Doctrine was simply more divide-and-rule, to drive a rift between Europeans.
After the Cold War this "rift" was simply "ruled" to be further east, and the desirable status quo of "Europeans set up against each other per outside ruling" was moved a few hundred miles eastwards. The new "Iron Curtain" which soon be declared, under some or other fancy term.
Read Mackinder (1904), which found its logical continuation with the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine, and Churchill's Iron Curtain.
-------------
Footnote:
My sincere thanks to a fellow youtuber (@realvipul) who thought my one of essays explaining the divide-and-rule/conquer strategy of power was "TLDR" or too complicated and therefore ran it through AI...
"The comment discusses the concept of "divide and rule" as a strategy employed by powerful entities to maintain control. It argues that human systems are inherently chaotic due to the complexity of human nature, making them susceptible to manipulation through division. The example of the Roman Empire's conquest of Britain around the year "0" is used to illustrate how this strategy works, emphasizing that the motivations of individual collaborators are less important than the overall effect of division in enabling the empire's dominance. The comment then extends this analysis to the American Century, suggesting that the same strategy was used to exert influence over Europe. It highlights that the goal is to create maximum division among opposing groups while maintaining unity within the ruling power. The comment criticizes the media and political leaders for perpetuating a cycle of lies and wars, often under the guise of opposing territorial expansion while simultaneously promoting systemic expansion. In essence, the comment argues that the "divide and rule" strategy is a fundamental tactic employed by powerful entities to maintain control, and that understanding this strategy is crucial for comprehending historical events and current geopolitical dynamics."
3
-
3
-
3
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
3
-
3
-
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemon.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quite or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else?
Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
Wait for it...
3
-
3
-
Divide and rule.
At the turn of the previous century, around 1900, Washington DC set out to divide (Europe) and gain (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be coordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[edited for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump (Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the divider must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favouritism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy).
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation, leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favoratism.
"Favor" one "empire" (in this case France and GB) above others...temporarily.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Some of the rare historical anomalies are Chamberlain (Munich 1938) or Boris Jonson (Finland/Sweden 2022) because try as one might, one cannot find any other strategic incentive for these missions, other than the noble cause and an effort keep the peace, in the face of previous total failure.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacitly supported the German position and insisted on Moroccan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
Classical of typical divide-and-rule policies:
- the "ententes" which London made with France (1904) and Russia (1907), which encircled Germany almost completely by adding the oceans to the "encirclement" (this would have pleased Washington DC strategists greatly)
- the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which "divided" Europeans with a "ruling"
- the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine similarly "drew lines on the map" which "divided" Europe into "friends" and "enemies"
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@earthlingthings Far longer than 75 years...
What is happening today, as "stage x", is simply a continuation of a ongoung strategy, and it is nothing new. For 100 years, settler colonists (Irgun, Lehi, Palmach, etc.) cooperating with the hegemon, carried out such practices of harassment, trying to coerce the original inhabitants to flee so they could occupy the land.
A hundred years ago the British Empire dispatched psychos like Orde Wingate (Special Night Squads) who took pleasure in random shootings, or waterboarding opposition to the British Empire in oil, sending the tortured back to their villages to report about the actions of their oppressors.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@neutralitystudies Hello Pascal
I hope the OP sees your reply, but I fear his notification settings might be switched off.
My analysis of what the OP states as his observation of the observed events these past few years, is as follows:
Those who have power constantly preach the "rules based society", but the rules they preach, are nothing like the "rules" they themselves follow as guidelines...
They themselves follow "rules" like the "48 Rules of Power/Robert Greene", which are not meant to overcome the divide and rule setup of any society, even democracies, but to make use of the divisions between systems, amplify these divisions if useful, or gloss over such divisions if beneficial for the own gain, in order to win personally or for the own favored system.
For those who follow such "rules", hypocrisy or lies are not an "oversight", or "a mistake", or "accidental", but a strategy of power (see footnote).
Hypocrites draw other hypocrites into their own circles of power: by being openly hypocritical, a hypocrite exposes himself/herself, and can therefore be approached by systems of gain. This is greatly aided by media, or the internet, incl. "free speech", since hypocrisy and lying is a "protected right". Creating entire entities of professional hypocrites and professional spinners, framers, and liars thereby establishing a hierarchy of hypocrites/deceivers, especially prevallent in systems of power and gain, like politics (incl., but not limited to "liberal democracies"), and all forms of structures with an intent of gain motivation (incl., but not limited to capitalist gain models). All of these attract a potential "<20% psychos" which are proven to exist in the top echelons of power in all "intent of gain systems".
Such systems also attract natural bullies, as per observable reality.
Hypocrites, narcissistic behaviour, bullying, and Machiavellianism might cause unease in the overwhelming number of good people in every society, but these good people are usually not the ones "gatekeeping" (also a bully tactic) the most influencial political/corporate job openings, which are not voted for by the populations of "Western-style"-democracies, or in corporations which then proceed to buy their own favorable laws (lobbying, influence) and buy corruptable politicians in the "legalized bribes"-systems they had previously lobbied for...
Being openly hypocritical and deceptive is a "rule" considered a virtue, in some circles of power.
Calling these people out in an effort of shaming is pointless, since they have no shame.
Footnotes/key words for further research:
* 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths
* Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy
* The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
* Dr. Namie's research concerneing the 4 bully types of human being
Since all human systems of gain (incl. politics and capitalism) are made up of human beings, the above research can be scaled up to any tier, right up to the level of states/empires.
Those who justify (almost) everything which happened in the past (a divide and rule world), will justify the present.
Because the "divide and rule"-world never ended...
Cheers, Ralph
3
-
3
-
3