Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Neutrality Studies"
channel.
-
3
-
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative.
Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a "fact"? Because it actually happened. If an actual fair treaty had ended WW1 in 1919, there would not have been a "WW2" and none of that which followed in the wake of an unfair end, would have ever happened.
Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
After a short halt, the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an "IMbalance of powers" as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing.
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Trying to remain neutral in the face of a grand strategy by global players is futile if the players intend to outwit each other by using people as "tools" on their "chessboards." The bigger picture can be distorted, and reality can be manipulated to deceive millions of people. You are an integral part of the games, wanted or not. The history of the encirclement policy of a Eurasian superpower repeated itself after 1990. The intent of the hegemonic power is to "transform" the smaller systems into tools of encirclement (proxies) or "unsinkable aircraft carriers" for its own systemic control or expansion. Then produce the entire story as "protecting freedom/friends/democracy," a "fight for freedom," or some other story that sounds good in Hollywood (a "bread and circuses" strategy for the domestic masses).
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
For the "divider," the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises...
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategist who openly admit this.
The conflagration that took place after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War, with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy o divide-nd-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they "feel" better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Do unto others what you do not want done to you."
Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the "logic" of causality where there is a trench waiting for you...
3
-
3
-
Yes, the oldest game: those who wished to gain from unity, vs. those who wished to gain from division.
The graphic depiction of Yin and Yang is not only valid about the "good vs bad" dichotomy (Taoism), but can also apply to the model of "UNITY/CONCORD" vs "DIVISION/DISCORD".
As the model of Yin and Yang states, there is always some good in the bad, and always some bad in the good, and equilibrium is hard to achieve since human nature tends to allow the pendulum to swing past the point of equilibrium, towards the other pole.
In the same way, every system based on division per default, always contains some elements of forces of unity. And, the other way around: systems based on the default setting that unity is the main principle, will always contain elements of division. When studying thousands of man-made systems, one reaches the conclusion that some are more "top down" UNITY with some lower tiered "freedoms" allowed in order to keep the peace (European monarchies, as examples), whilst others are more "bottom up freedoms" with restrictions applying (France, after the French Revolution). Both meet in the middle somewhere (Yin/Yang), and then try to constantly balance powers between the various factions.
Exemplary: A "Republic" is already a "meet-in-the-middle" approach, since it divides power on multiple tiers as political framework or structure with a desirable pyramidal shape of POWER to ensure bottom-up freedoms do not become unrulable.
CHINESE CENTURY OF SHAME (outsiders' interests = great market, to be divvied up)
In the 19th- and first half of the 20th century, the local political forces in China had to compete with outside dividers which had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER. The local strategists used old strategies to try to re-introduce a fully sovereign China. A union which could be free of outside meddling, completely independent and which was there for Chinese interests first and foremost, and not at the behest of outside imperialist powers and their proxy rule and domination. During these roughly 100 years, the European imperialist powers were later joined by the USA and Japanese imperialist powers, and various competing ideologies, all continuously using China as battleground for an entire century.
Trying to overcome the OUTSIDE DIVIDERS by playing the same game of more divisions, with yet more divided Chinese systems, is of course a dumb strategy, because the DIVIDERS will always win. If weak, and while weak, the outside dividers will simply politically capture the rising powers, and morph or incorporate these. Therefore, in order to overcome the outside division, those searching for more internal unity will choose a top-down form of unity, not the bottom-up form of division. You don't fight fire with fire, but with water.
One doesn't fight division with more division, if the intention is more unity.
Note that the vital passages to understand the interaction of STRATEGIES and SYSTEMS are highlighted and cannot be ignored for the sake of anybody's feelings.
Cause: Already existing divides and outside meddling as divide-and-rule strategy of power and their local proxies (later stages: Chinese Nationalists).
Effect: Top down enforced unity, to squeeze foreign influence out, with outside support as the communists (Maoists supported by Moscow) of imposed unity.
Both SIDES carried out acts of extreme brutality, atrocities, crimes against humanity, and which only differed in scope and means of implementation to achieve an own aim (DIVISION or UNITY in the region in question).
The UNIFIERS won most of the battles and squeezed the outside dividers out of most of the region in question, except one province: Formosa/Taiwan.
STATUS today: UNDECIDED/SLIGHT STATE OF DIVISION PERSISTS
THERE IS THE TEMPLATE
Unity in a region of the planet, for the benefit of those who live here, versus division by outside forces, for the benefit of outsiders and their local support.
Take this template anywhere you wish, and it will rhyme.
This is regardless of the point on the timeline, or the region of the planet.
All it depends upon is the POWER of the opposing forces, and the template will become either MORE violent, or less violent.
Both or all SIDES carry out acts of extreme brutality, atrocities, crimes against humanity, and which only differ in scope and means of implementation to achieve an own aim (DIVISION or UNITY in the region in question).
THE ME DURING THE COLD WAR (interests = oil, strategic value)
The local political forces had to compete with outside dividers which had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER during the 19th and 20th centuries, right through to today (current events). The local strategists used old strategies to try to re-introduce a fully sovereign Middle East. A union which could be free of outside meddling, completely independent and which was there for local interests first and foremost, and not at the behest of outside imperialist powers and their proxy rule and domination. During these roughly 100 years, the European imperialist powers were later joined by the USA, and later Soviet and Western ideologies, all continuously using West Asia as battleground.
Trying to overcome the OUTSIDE DIVIDERS by playing the same game of more divisions, with yet more divided systems, is of course a dumb strategy, because the DIVIDERS will always win. If weak, and while weak, the outside dividers will simply politically capture the rising powers, and morph or incorporate these. Therefore, in order to overcome the outside division, those searching for more internal unity will choose a top-down form of unity, not the bottom-up form of division. You don't fight fire with fire, but with water.
One doesn't fight division with more division, if the intention is more unity.
Cause: Already existing divides and outside meddling as divide-and-rule and the old established colonial structure Western puppets.
Effect: Top down enforced unity, to squeeze foreign influence out. Arab nationalism (or MAGA for the Middle East "Make Arabia Great Again"), a secular (note, not favouring any of the many local pre-existing religious or ethnic groups/factions) form of imposed unity, for example the Baathist Party in Iraq and Syria (still ongoing, which explains current events).
Both SIDES carried out, and still do, acts of extreme brutality, atrocities, crimes against humanity, and which only differed in scope and means of implementation to achieve an own aim (DIVISION or UNITY in the region in question).
The DIVIDERS won most of the battles and squeezed the inside unifiers out of most of the region in question.
STATUS today: UNDECIDED/EXTREME DIVISION PERSISTS
EUROPE/EURASIA (outsiders' interests = a potential seat of POWER if united, therefore to be kept as divided as possible)
During the 20th century the local political forces had to compete with outside dividers which had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER, right through to today (current events). The local strategists used old strategies to try to re-introduce a fully sovereign Europe/Eurasia. A union which could be free of outside meddling, completely independent and which was there for European/Eurasian interests first and foremost, and not at the behest of outside powers and their proxy rule and domination. During these roughly 125 years (1900 to today), the European imperialist powers were later joined by the USA and Japanese imperialist powers, and later Soviet and Western ideologies, all continuously using Eurasia as battleground.
Trying to overcome the OUTSIDE DIVIDERS by playing the same game of more divisions, with yet more divided Eurasian systems, is of course a dumb strategy, because the DIVIDERS will always win. If weak, and while weak, the outside dividers will simply politically capture the rising powers, and morph or incorporate these. Therefore, in order to overcome the outside division, those searching for more internal unity will choose a top-down form of unity, not the bottom-up form of division. You don't fight fire with fire, but with water.
One doesn't fight division with more division, if the intention is more unity.
Cause: Already existing divides and outside meddling as divide-and-rule.
Effect: Top down enforced unity, to squeeze foreign influence out.
During the final stages of this struggle, which are termed "WW1 and WW2", all SIDES carried out acts of extreme brutality, atrocities, crimes against humanity, and which only differed in scope and means of implementation to achieve an own aim (DIVISION or UNITY in the region in question).
STATUS today: UNDECIDED/DIVISION PERSISTS
The patterns of unity vs. division always rhyme. No, they will not always be 100% the same (see Yin/Yang). Therefore any statement claiming that history repeats is incorrect. There are always many local variations often dictated by geography, population, ideologies, religions, etc.
TODAY
The entire system they still favor in the USA and collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often repeated nice-sounding storyline.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tamimq5895 Then you are on a good track. These channels place the systems and the strategies in the foreground, and try to disregard the "clutter" caused by human emotions.
What they are however not doing sufficiently IMHO is exactly "HOW" the dividers set entire systems of human being up against each other.
Here's my contribution to that:
The cool thing about divide and rule is that according to Lindy's Law, things which have been around for a looooong time, tend to stick around for a lot longer.
Once upon a time, a man set out to defeat the divide and rule system of a great empire: By a series of bottom-up opposition techniques and measures, known collectively as "Quit India", the advocates set about creating unity from the bottom up, by unravelling the divide and rule system of privileges afforded to a few, by the hegemon.
"Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869 – 1948), popularly known as Mahatma Gandhi, was an Indian lawyer,[4] anti-colonial nationalist[5] and political ethicist[6] who employed nonviolent resistance to lead the successful campaign for India's independence from British rule,[7] and to later inspire movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. The honorific Mahātmā (Sanskrit: "great-souled", "venerable"), first applied to him in 1914 in South Africa, is now used throughout the world.[8][9]" (Wiki)
Born into relative obscurity, to Time Person of the Year (1930), over time wielding an incredible amount of power, by simply preaching justice in the face of injustice, and he was later crucified by his very own people.
The Empire in the shape of "Pontius Pilate" washed its hands in innocence, and as supreme power, let those locals whom the empire had enabled "take care of matters": a fine outcome for the Empire. The "proxies" did the bidding of those who wielded the true power. The instruments of power did the screaming and the shouting, protected their privileges, and even killed each other...
Strip away the ancillary details, the ideology, the hubris, zeolotry and jingoism, and the political situations and the solutions sought by a few advocates for freedom and self-determination were remarkably similar. The stories "rhyme". Jesus of Nazareth (+/- 4 BC to 30 AD), popularly known as Mesiah, was a Jewish carpenter, anti-colonial humanist (aka "a hippie") and political ethicist who employed nonviolent resistance to lead the unfortunately unsuccessful campaign of opposition to Roman rule, and to later inspire movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. The honorific Jesus, only applied long after his death, is now used throughout the world.
Perceived as a threat by the systems of power. Wiki: "He (edit: Jesus) was arrested and tried by the Jewish authorities,[24] turned over to the Roman government, and crucified on the order of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Jerusalem."
A perfect description of how the divide and rule system operates.
Set up "proxies" against each other.
Favor some locals, above others, and afford them rank, privilege and limited powers.
Simplest thing in the world. What all divide and rule systems have in common, is a plethora of the willing: Those who'd gladly throw the first stone.
Scale it up to any level of power, of any tier of systems ranged against other systems...
It's been around for a loooooong time, and it would be foolish to think it simply vanished into thin air.
Nothing any human being has ever come up with, has ever eclipsed the power it wields over millions of minds.
Critical question: Even if Jesus did not know what he was really up against, and only wished to stand up to what he was witnissing as the divide and rule/conquer system of the Roman Empire, why do you think he advised to "love neighbors" (neighboring systems) and "love your enemies"? (in other words, those who are the most difficult to "love"). In case you are from the Islamic system, once created by the British Empire to "steer against each other" as "lines on the map" set up during and after WW1, then please remember that Jesus is a common prophet of all Abrahamic Religions, and his words should be considered as valid for all equaly. The "dividers" were the empires, which set people up against each other.
The Roman Empire = The British Empire mirrored each other, in the "techniques" they used to control millions or subjects.
Of course, the intention of any divide and rule system is to make people "hate their neighbors" and to "create enemies" of systems for the benefit of the "dividers" who skim off enormous gain in the form of power and influence. The way to beat the "divide and rule" system of any hegeomony, is to do the exact opposite of one's own emotions. It is the emotions the "divide and rule"-strategy of the outside powers are going to concentrate on.
The own individual emotions is what the "dividers" have focussed on throughout history. Therefore, overcoming these emotions is the first step.
cheers
3
-
3
-
3
-
Excellent discussion.
The "big picture" is even bigger than discussed here, but even has historical parallels in strategy.
Japan, after the mid-19th century, in 1951, in 1960 (MOFA), and just two days ago (Wednesday).
Snuggling up to power.
History repeating.
Using Japan at the turn of the previous century as an example we can explain how powers with a superior geographical location and in a better financial position, and with a more advanced industrial and technological stand, can build up proxies and then encourage them to do the bidding of the more poweful bigger partner. Naturally a "proxy" is always smaller than the "big brother" (benefactor in strategy) so that offers a convenient opening for the narrative of "only protecting weaker people", by simply changing the perspective. Proxies are often termed as "alliance partners" which need protection, but such alliances could result in a deadly outcome for the minor power, in case the power imbalance and geographical distinctions are not suitably applied in logic and reasoning. This reality of the proxy for US interests (perspective) is often bluntly stated, or blurted out as a perceived given "right" by advocates of American Exceptionalism, and has a long tradition. It is expressed by these individuals as seemingly "normal" that smaller countries or systems should do the bidding of America, but exasperation is proclaimed if it turns out these previously built up proxies have own interests.
A current example of this is stated by Congressman Dan Crenshaw (see below footnote) seemingly thinking it is "normal" other human beings in other systems (Ukraine) should be considered worthwhile "investment potential" to further US interests.
Japan, of course another "useful tool" (strategy) on one axis of advance of the system America, as "going west" after her War of Independence, and not stopping when it got to the Pacific Ocean. The system kept on going towards the Far East in a systemic way: That of gain for the own entities in the form of institutions and corporations, even if not necessarily always with the intent of direct political rule. The other axis was of course mainly going south into the Americas, with the Monroe Doctrine as a soft power reciprocal engagement of systems using strategies and "tools" here too (like Simon Bolivar, was of course a "proxy" to weaken the Spanish Empire ), with the clear advantage going to the major power, Washington DC.
After the generally considered "start" of American Imperialism with the Spanish-American War, Washington DC took on a European power for the first time, even though at the time this fit in perfectly with the narrative of "protection" for the unfortunate weak peoples of Central America (battle of the minds), whilst still fitting the premise of "going further westwards" as seen from the perspective of North America, and geopolitics. Note that Winston Churchill later candidly pointed out what "protecting poor people" really meant***. "Protection" often only meant the "proxy" for own gain, as Churchill clearly understood, since that is what all European empires also claimed to be doing. Desirable strategically located Spanish overseas territories for military bases, like the Philippenes or Guam, lay on the most direct trade routes across the Pacific...
Apparently history is not a lesson some people will ever learn from.
The historical examples as given by wiser Irish leaders, who refused to become proxies as they fought for own goals, lost on these strategists.
And so history repeats:
- A closed system, lured out of isolation...check.
- A kindled imperialism, hoping for territorial gain...check.
- A tool which could be used to encroach on the "big brother's" rival...check.
- An instrument of power, which would burn for the advantage of the stronger power...check.
- Massively increased military spending...check.
- Another system's tax payers, bearing the burden...check.
- Ambitious local leaders striving to build a large, modern navy...yet again. Check...
History repeating.
3
-
3
-
3
-
The concept of racism can easily be incorporated into a comprehensive divide-and-rule strategy.
BRITISH EMPIRE
Growing up in South Africa, one is quickly introduced to the concept of "dual loyalties" in the form of a joke or a cartoon: that of the "soutpiel". Every child knew it, and joked about it. I'll leave to the reader to ask a South African friend what that means. In a nutshell, it is the dual loyalty of people living in Africa, with their loyalties divided between Europe and Africa, meaning that their...ahem...the "future" was left dangling in the Atlantic Ocean. Every child in South Africa knew it, but not every child understood it.
"SOUTPIEL": A GRAND STRATEGY/GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Note that first and foremost, the jokers in South Africa actually became a victim of their own misguided logic: whilst the old immigrants were finger pointing at the new British immigrants with mixed loyalties from Great Britain after the 1820s, they were actually of mixed loyalty themselves on another tier. The Boers' hearts might have been beating in Africa, but in their minds they were still better Europeans as they practiced divide-and-rule themselves, over their neighbors, keeping these neighbors "down" and "out" of power. . Therefore they never managed the close relationships on equal footing, or at eye level, to those they subjected (indigenous black tribes). Then, much later they were overpowered by exactly this same misguided logic they had previously imposed on their neighbors whom they wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule and wealth (divide-and-rule onto and over the weaker local tribes, easily divided using tribalism). Unlike South American empires (Aztecs/Incas), who had not an iota of knowledge of the European Empires and their ability to REACH globally, for the South African strategists there was NO excuse. They should have known what future they themselves should have constructed for Southern Africa, because they had full access to the histories of the lands they originally came from (Europe). The "dividers" of a geographical region are hardly ever open to any suggestions of systemic UNITY/CONCORD, if they themselves GAIN from DIVISION/DISCORD, until they are later divided themselves, and subjected. The story of mankind. Can we blame the indigenous black tribes for not uniting when the first white settlers arrived in their territories? No, because just like the indigenous Native Americans, these individual tribes simply lacked the organisation and technology to observe/analyse beyond their own limited horizons. For the Boers, who HAD this knowledge, their own ideology acted as a block in the own brains. The land borders were shaped in the brains of "superior white man" (sic.), not on the map, which then later backfired. Because of a lack of combined AFRICAN UNITY, justice, power, and a fair distribution of wealth and the land, by ALL inhabitants and FOR all inhabitants (round tables), a bigger "DIVIDER" came along and ruled them all after the Second Boer War...
Unlike after the French came to the Cape Colony and the Boers simply "trekked" their way out, when the British Empire came for them, there was nowhere left for the Boers to run to, since they had settled and had been surrounded on all sides by European empires (British Empire, and Portugal/Mozambique).
The above can also serve as template for the Levant/Middle East, and all the artificial borders drawn by empires OVER the peoples living there, as top-down imperialistic divide-and-rule strategy. Just like Southern Africa (region), West Asia had MORE THAN sufficient resources to create a decent lifestyle for ALL the inhabitants, and therefore ask yourself the critical question "Qui Bono?" if there is an "Apartheid"-style division by a few, for the benefit of a few? (Apartheid = divide-and-rule, as top-down implementation. Apart = seperate = divide.)
Southern Africa = Between the sea and the sea (Indian/Atlantic) and should have included ALL peoples who lived here. The "barriers" were in the brain, to the detriment of all when the "dividers" came.
Arabian Peninsula = Between the sea and the sea (Mediterranean/Indian Oceans) and should have included ALL peoples who lived here. The "barriers" were in the brain, to the detriment of all when the "dividers" came.
Historically, who gained from DIVISION?
Who would have gained from a fair UNITY in Southern Africa, and on the Arabian Peninsula, when the faraway "empires" came? Surprized that the entire text is headed "BRITISH EMPIRE" but doesn't say much related to the British Empire? Oh yes, it does. Because it is exactly the same technique a bigger outside empire (American Century) employed on Europe as it overpowered the British Empire: the divide-and-rule technique, the most powerful force on the planet.
---------------------------------------------
Look over the horizon. Eurasia. When carrying out a geopolitical analysis, do not make the same mistakes as Africa's black tribes, and the Boers, and Native Americans, and Incas and Aztecs, and the Chinese rulers during their "Century of Humiliation", and many many more all over the world, who all failed to look past the limited horizons open to them. YOUR "horizons" are given to you by the texts in your own history books, which intend to LIMIT your horizon, not open it.
Treaty of Versailles = Divide and rule of and over neighbors (Europe/Eurasia), and the misguided logic they imposed on their neighbors whom the dividers wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule (divide-and-rule onto and over the weakened local systems who "lost the war" and which they wished to create top down). European leaders who did not understand the logic of Chesterton's fence, and destroyed what they did not understand. Who was "let in" and who was "left out" of such agreements/accords?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Chesterton%27s_fence
Abrahamic Accords = Divide and rule of and over direct neighbors (Arabian Peninsula), to enable the implementation of Israel's "Clean Break" policy (divide-and-rule strategy) and the misguided logic they imposed on their neighbors whom they wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule (divide-and-rule onto and over the weaker local systems). Who was "let in" and who was "left out" of such agreements/accords?
The leaders of West Asia are all "soutpiele" (divided loyalties) as long as they bow down to outside interests and value their own vested interests before the interests of the entire region (oil resources which had been turned into US/EU/Swiss assets for a few over the span of 50 years, past the well-being of the majority of the own peoples).
One of the biggest misconceptions of history is the ability of the ideologically/systemically indoctrinated to view themselves as unique, whereas as a general rule their own histories rhyme with other historical events, based on the systemic analysis. The will to keep the own systems APART from their neighbors (divided by ideology and rulings) always backfires, when one is no longer "King of the Mountain" (strategy of power). By the time everything implodes, the rulers/dividers are long gone, having previously brought their own wealth and families to safe havens.
3
-
How did the USA go from an obscure colony to the world's nr.1 in the space of a relatively short time.
To discover how it happened in "a blink of an eye" on the timeline of modern history, let's go next level.
The impact of strategies on history.
These strategies are universal, and it therefore does not matter who one quotes, in which era, or what level of society or politics one refers to (micro- v. macro level dynamics in hierarchies).
"Observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership." Deng Xiaoping
To loosely quote strategy, Washington DC just had to wait long enough until their rivals messed up.
On the "empires"-level the USA's strategy starting around 1900 was fairly simple:
1) keep European powers as "divided" as possible, implemented by whatever means possible, but mainly using favoratism.
2) wait for ALL the others to fail.
Would such a strategy, whether planned or the unintentional effect of prior actions guarantee a success? Answer: NO
There is never a guarantee for anything in strategy, but if one has the geographical advantage (distance from squibbling Europeans, coupled with an own rising population, raw materials, a rapidly gathering industrial/financial base, increased education = increased innovation, all constituting "power"), then the US elites in their "preferred system" of corporatism could simply sit it out.
What was effected by favoratism was a "pecking order" of "friends" with access to Washington DC.
It does not matter how one justifies this political pecking order, because "justified" = an appeal to emotion = difficult to objectify.
What is important, is THAT a pecking order of European powers with access to Washington DC was established over a relatively short time around the year 1900.
Note here: A little-known detail is that one of the first US choices in this "pecking order" of European powers was actually Imperial Russia (by the Theodore Roosevelt administration). Why would the USA possibly "favor" Russia as a "choice"?
My suggestion: Look at a map every now and then, and consider the European balance of power at the times, and the aims and goals of these European powers at the time...
Is this an unimportant little detail, because it "did not happen"? No, this is VERY important, because it reveals strategies.
Simply saying "it did not happen, therefore it is not important" is a gross misrepresentation of history, which will then result in a gross misrepresentation of current events.
Any European division = a so-called "win - win" for the USA.
To the USA it did not matter what happened in Europe.
Whether Europeans ended up happily singing Kumbayah, or tore each other to shreds...it would be a "win" for somebody in the American Century. As long as there was no common European policy or overly powerful alliance in a comprehensive European security agreement (of sorts) which could potentially be directed at US plans to expand, there was nothing on the "elite"-level in the USA to worry about...
Note also that all of the above solely deals with the "elite"-level, so there is no need for anybody to feel personally offended.
Since no elites ever asked the "average American", there is also no need for any "average American" to feel offended on behalf of these decision makers, unless they choose to be. Also true, for all historical and current events, and for all citizens of all states.
3
-
3
-
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."
And if you lie, steal, and kill for division, then that is what you are fighting for.
"We lied. We cheated. We stole" - Mike Pompeo
And, may I add, they are and always were, above all PROUD of all their lies, loot, and deceit all over the globe.
America's "global friends" (incl. the unceded Chinese province of "Taiwan") are burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including all semites in the MENA region) against each other. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) for the template.
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
3
-
At 15:55 and "Morocco has brought in settlers," is an old imperial strategy, which even Rome practiced.
It sounds so eerily familiar, since it is a common imperialist strategy of "greatly replacing" (😕) an indiginous population with the own ubermensch ingroup...
In the study of conflict resulting out of the migration of large cultural groups, usually as part of agendas or expansion.
What is presently happening, as a part of a wider conflict going back at least 100 years, is the immigration of a superior culture of lighter skin-colored cultural ingroup, injected onto a darker skin-colored cultural outgroup.
The favored ingroup coming from outside (people born elsewhere) received land, livestock, and a home of sorts, all based on the advantage of having "friends in the right places", and having more resources at hand for the own aims and goals. In return, they become what the USA did during their own expansion into North America, the "farms/forts", which if "shot at" would always be "just defended", or "shooting back" (strategy from the "101 playbook of imperialism" for expansion of the own systems).
The "settler colonist" (system) is the TOOL of expansion.
While the existing population was squeezed out of strategically vital areas one step at a time (arable farmland, for example, or sources of water), the faraway controlling political movement sought widespread support from whoever would give it, specifically from very imperialistic indoctrinated "friendly systems", for the own expansive goals. Real or at least tacid support for the "own -ism" is bought from large organisation, like the UN for example.
People who came with the well-wishing of large portions of the "ingroup"-supporters ("-isms"), or at least indifferent/ignorant of the real issues and therefore largely complacent, created a culture of "settler colonialism", creating a "storyline" that if such a settler colonist is attacked in any way, that they will be "just defending themselves". The original imperialist expansion (industrial/financial/argricultural/mining/raw materials/ideological, etc.), of "settler colonialism" being the cause of conflict, is simply never questioned at all...
Of course, one does not need a cristal ball, or be a Nostradumbass in order to predict that conflict was bound to take place, in view of previously unfolding similar series of historical events, in other places in the world, where people with an "-ism", emboldened by a feeling of cultural superiority, following a prescibed set of steps as strategy, in order to gain a superior political/economic position for the own "tribe" (tribalism).
When one studies the various perspectives about human conflict, one can't help wondering who is most to blame.
Is it:
1) the various enablers and deciders as executive powers? (leaderships)
2) those who saw financial opportunities to exploit, specifically in case troubles/strife ensued? (opportunists)
3) those who wished to proliferate themselves, advance personal carriers, or similar free-riders, but otherwise had no real POWER as executives? (political expediency of choosing sides)
4) the huddled masses without land, who decided to take the lifeline thrown at them, despite knowing that they were imposing on another already existing indigenous population? (chosen ingroup)
5) the indigenous population, mostly equaly "huddled masses" just trying to eke out a living, but who were never asked what they wanted for themselves as collective? (chosen outgroup)
6) any other, or a different order, since this is an open question
It should not be too difficult to conclude that responsibility for the resulting conflict goes pretty much in the order of 1 to 5, with those mostly responsible being the few "deciders" (as 1). These should not only have been in the position to foresee trouble ahead, but also to acknowledge these foreseeable events, and then search alternatives.
Only...
...the unfolding series of events did not take place in the Middle East, and did not involve London, the British Empire, France, or any other western power.
The conflict mentioned in the first paragraphs, has been taking place with gathering momentum over the past 100 years, is taking place in Irian Jaya (Indonesia) of course.
I hope nobody concluded is was about some other place somewhere else in the world...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_conflict
The "strategic encroachment" as part of such "outgroup"-agendas must be searched for...
"During the late 20th century Indonesia resettled 300,000 farmers to the restive province of West Papua, transforming its demographic composition. Such resettlement, or ‘transmigration’, was quite limited until the mid-1980s and restricted to only certain areas of West Papua. What accounts for the incidence of transmigration? Using a panel of all transmigration, ethnic cleansing and demographic change data in each regency of West Papua during 1964-2000 compiled from confidential government sources, I show that, after an aborted Papuan uprising in 1984, Indonesia cleansed and settled its border with Papua New Guinea to forestall cross-border insurgent activity. I then show that after the Grasberg gold mine was opened in 1990 Indonesia cleansed and settled the area around the mine." from the introduction of "Indonesian Settler Colonialism in West Papua", 10 Jun 2020, Lachlan McNamee, University of California, Los Angeles
According to the "NIMBY"-principle, most people actually do not care much about unfolding events far away, so are most likely completely unaware that there even is a simmering conflict somewhere else. According to "NIMBY" however, should the shoe be on the other foot, and the own existence becomes "encroached upon" by an outside migrating group (immigrants/refugees), all of similar background, it doesn't take long for the observed "unease" to begin. Firstly, in the form of lots of moaning and groaning, then if no political action changing the course of events results, the "steps" gradually increase in the level of violence exerted. Firstly there would be randomly organized protests, then larger forms of civil unrest, more property damage, more arson, the first deaths, and so on, and so on, until there is a large scale revolution. Any wise political leadership will always head off such series of unfolding events, but there must be a recognition that action is called for. If not, the series of events always follow predictable patterns, regardless of the tier of events, the cultural background of those involved, the gods these people pray to, the ideology, or the language spoken.
3
-
3
-
The USA had wanted to control the Pacific Rim as their "outer periphery" ever since Matthew Perry's 1853 "visit" to Tokyo Bay to coerce Japan out of isolation. Read the strategy papers. Only the American Civil War, the European powers' intentions to also enter the Asia Pacific region (era of imperialism), and the need to focus on the USA for a short respite (Era of Reconstruction), saved these island nations at the time...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era
...from the same fate of Hawaii or the Philippines ("morphed" as geopolitical staging areas, or use as imperialist proxies for US systemic expansion) after the 1890s.
Reality at the time? The "tribe" Japan was simply too big, too well-organized, too unified, and too far away (technological stand during the 19th century) from being "an easy pushover" like Spain or the Kingdom of Hawaii.
One could say that the Manifest Destiny didn't stop when it reached the US West Coast. It continued into the Pacific and was one of the "march routes" of US imperialism. The other being southwards into South America (Monroe Doctrine).
With these "doctrines", by Washington DC, which have a long US history (there are dozens of similar examples of divide and rule) the power players stated their intentions to "rule by division", carving up these regions into smaller "divisions" which were easier to access and CONTROL (mostly with money, and favoritism).
Perry stated at some point that he wished for the USA to take Formosa as US overseas territory as well, but Japan beat the USA to it (1895).
Now they are back.
Taiwan must be "morphed" to become a US asset and proxy to encircle China. A "next Ukraine." (Ukraine as Roman-era style "buck catcher" to encroach on Russia from Eurasia's western side).
Also keep a watch-out for the advocates of imperialism, and the apologists of imperialism.
Their "narratives" have not changed much over the centuries, and these narratives rhyme in time.
Their techniques rhyme too.
2
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." -- Walter E. Williams
2
-
2
-
The "next Ukraine."
The new proxy in the setup phase.
The Maidan "color revolution" is being repeated as we speak, as US modus operandi.
Georgia/Divide and Rule
Here is what they tell you these days: Something along the lines of "Georgian leaders are all Moscow puppets," and the oppression of the poor people via a "foreign influence law," and how it is all about current leaders being Moscow stooges....
Here is what they won't tell you: That the foreign state/empire (Washington DC) which pays these protesters or their handlers, via such agencies as the CIA affiliated NED (of ex-Maidan fame) already have their own act to avoid foreign meddling in the USA.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act
What the MSM won't tell you is that the foreign meddling in Georgia came FIRST, and that the act attempting to regulate this foreign meddling by Tiflis, came AFTER that.
A typical act of hypocrisy and deception, as per strategy of divide and rule, to avoid continental European/Eurasian unity implemented by Washington DC, as it has been for the past 200 years, using various deceptive divide and rule techniques. First by London, and very convenient for Washington DC. Then after 1945, after the British Empire was driven into the ground using economic warfare means, directly taken over by Washington DC as explained by Michael Hudson in his book Super Imperialism.
GRAND STRATEGY/GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Georgia, and millions of Georgians, are simply being set up as the "next Ukraine." Such a setting up of neighbors against neighbors has a long history and it is considered the absolute "acme of professionalism" by Washington DC to set up others to fight and die, so that US leaders in faraway Washington DC can haggle and arguing how much the lives of these locals are worth, all in efforts to score brownie points amongst their adoring fans.
To "invest" in such death, is considered the Washington DC norm, as stated by several Washington DC advocates for US global hegemony.
The scale of such setups is not important, nor how it is justified: It is divide and rule.
Such selective FAVORATISM is indicative of a divide and rule strategy, by an outside power.
Whether it is currently Tiflis, or historically London which was being FAVORED by the POWER with the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE which was Washington DC, it remains a divide and rule strategy.
It does not matter if anybody tells you it is a divide and rule strategy, or not, because the strategy is given away by the EVENTS.
One might chest-thump around about how powerful ones "fwiends" are, but there will always be a PRICE TAG.
See Ukraine today, the "past FAVORITE."
There is always a price tag.
Often the excuses for meddling mirror each other, from "we must help the poor peopke" to "but, but, it was voluntary".
Regardless of any apologetics it remains DIVIDE AND RULE.
2
-
2
-
A little bit of reality, rather than cherry-picked and skewed history 😮
PART I
"During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), (§§§footnote) the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed." SOURCE: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive
US strategist in these think tanks lay out the scheme of what was going to be the new post-war reality, as a "Grand Area" as an almost exclusive "back yard", and under their "natural rights" for the USA to control. Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The more industrial countries were to be guided as "great workshops". Those who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (would now be working under US supervision/finance). More, undeveloped regions were to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial centers, as a memo put it. They were to be "exploited" for the reconstruction of Europe (The references are to South America and Africa, but the points are general.)
To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this." Note, all words in quotes were actual words used IN THIS OFFICIAL US DOCUMENT, and the thesis and its quoted sources can all be downloaded for free, from the www, and using these key words provided for your search engine.
---------------------------------
After around 1940, ... (quote) "Alvin Hansen envisioned a joint Soviet-American domination of Europe that anticipated Henry Kissinger’s subsequent “Partnership of Strength.” Hansen observed in 1945, at the outset of his study of America’s Role in the World Economy, that the great new postwar fact would be “the rise of Russia on the one side of the globe and the economic and military power of the United States on the other. A happy geographical accident (§§§footnote) – two great powers occupying vast continents and controlling vast resources in areas that are noncompetitive – this fact must be set down as a dominating and directing force in the future course of history. We are confronted here with a completely new constellation of forces. *Within this framework the role of France, Germany and ENGLAND of necessity must be something very different from that set by the European patterns of past generations..."
"During the war its diplomats had come to recognize that given America’s economic supremacy, a more open international economy would not impair the U.S. economy, but would link the economic activity of other non-Communist countries into a satellite relationship with the United States. It was unlikely that in the foreseeable future foreign countries dependent for their reconstruction on the inflow of U.S. resources could interfere in U.S. domestic policies. On the other hand the reverse, an extension of U.S. influence over other countries, was visibly possible. Thus, whereas America had boycotted the League of Nations after the First World War as a threat to its domestic sovereignty, it no longer feared multilateralism. Quite visibly, the more open and interlinked the postwar international economy became, the greater would be the force of U.S. diplomacy throughout the world."
From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.", Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
2
-
PART II
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers.
-----------------------------------
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
§§§footnote
If you wish to know more about exactly how the British Empire was "being dismantled,"....respond...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2