Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Neutrality Studies"
channel.
-
2
-
@jason8434 Very interesting comment.
Remember that throughout history, "wars/crises" have always been one of the biggest influencers in human bahaviour, and therefore a perfect "divider": War creates long-term effects, in the minds of a majority of human beings.
For the ruling classes, in the sinecure comfort behind their high walls, there is often no incentive to stop cirises and wars, apart from the "good souls" in every system (incl governments), who often cannot stop the bad people in their own systems.
"The Force" to influence billions of minds is strategy. The most effective of these is the divide and rule/conquer technique. It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: WRONG.
It is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling".
Every system which does not specifically forbid the divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it.
No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy".
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use the technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Like the Nazis, all power players regardless of the "system of gain" in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
The Big Lie is the power of the divide and rule/conquer technique, and even the Nazis hid their "Big Lie"-conspiracy theory, behind an even bigger lie: how they intended to play this game until they got into power after their failed coup d'etat.
The "Big Lie" is not a myth but a misrepresentation of the truth.
It is the power of "divide and rule/conquer" which lurks behind every strategy they follow, in order to gain.
No human being has ever come up with a means to overcome this age-old technique of ruling over billions of people, because it is predicated on human nature itself, which is enduring.
No power player wants to become associated with authoritarian, or "colonial" tactics and strategies, or Nazis, so they cannot use it as a political means to attack rivals: it will immediately result in blowback.
The "Big Lie" conspiracy masked the divide and rule technique.
No power player can ever accuse any other power player of using it, since it will immediately backfire: the accusation of using the technique themselves, which in most cases of intent of gain will even apply***. The disguise usually comes in the form of scapegoating or another form of appeal to the emotion of listeners, or addressing and fortifying their already existing biases.
"Scapegoating" = an appeal to lower emotions of potential supporters.
In our divided societies, appealing to these biases might always be that tiny little "weight" that tilts the scale in very tightly run political elections.
Most power players read books on strategy, with the intention of using these strategies for personal gain, not because they wish to benefit you (the individual). There is always the urge to defend own favored systems, when one reads perceived "attacks" on these favored systems or own heroes, and the beloved own "-isms", which also reveal standard procedures, meaning the "attacker" soon falls into predetermined pathways to deflect and obfuscate from the core theory...
Great Britain did not "win" from the "divide and rule/conquer" system they had set up in Europe, which was a matter of long-term standing policy (historical analysis based on the observation of events), which resulted in London making the strongest continental power their "default rival/enemy" system.
Britons (average citizens) lost BIG TIME.
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:
***the strategy of "divide and rule/conquer" only applies in competitive "intent of gain" systems, not benevolent forms of reciprocal human interaction which are 100% fair...
2
-
Yes, 100% on track.
It is also intended for "future Asia."
Historically in East Asia, India and China were the biggest losers as outsiders came with the divide-and-rule technique of power (Era of Western Imperialism).
If one understands what happened to China during their "Century of Humiliation," means that one then already has the template to understand what is happening today. One can use the historical "template" and apply it in the same manner.
What happened to China during that era, is how "divide and rule" worked in the past, and still works today. Create or deepen a political problem, and then wait for the little minions benefiting from the outside POWER of imperialism to come asking for "help." Use their "plight" (artificially enhanced) to meddle, or "leverage" (power dynamics) crises into "eternal problems," sit by and do nothing as problems foment into violence, revolutions, and wars, or carry out other forms of privatized interference (corporatism) under government protection, or without. Whatever works, details really REALLY DON'T MATTER. Once "fomented troubles" rise out of hand, claim to "just want peace." Then use the little minions as favourites (favouritism = a technique within the "divide and rule" strategy of power) to destabilize an entire region, steer them against other weaker entities, and/or employ them as instruments of power (the "tools" of power dynamics), or create overseas regions as a staging area far from the home base (the "unsinkable aircraft carriers"/like colonial-era Hong Kong), etc.
Whatever works for the desired region to be divided/conquered or where CONTROL and domination is required for the economic systems of gain.
There is no way that current day Chinese leaders will not have learnt their very own historical lesson, and allow their very own history to repeat/rhyme, and allow such outside meddling in the own systems to gain traction, AGAIN for a second time.
Every nation or state has its own "Never again!"
European citizens today are still suffering from the hegemonial ambitions of some of their leaders, teaming up with Washington DC/the Pentagon. These citizens, usually around 50% of entire populations, suffer directly ("heating or eating"), or indirectly (soaring inflation), these are all "effects," not to be confused with "causes" (see concept of retro causality, one of the most easily misused ways to skew a timeline of events). Some eventually even end up in the muddy trenches.
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or Mackinder before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their (temporary) GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
With re. to how tools are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..."
Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves.
Note also, that a "plan" and the strategy to effect the plan, are two different things.
Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as the USA implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combatted by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today, and there is MORE than sufficient evidence for this. Outsiders intent on playing the game, use the revolutionary spirit, in order to hop onto useful dissent, strengthen it, and insert levers which they can pry open to gain own advantages. Beijing is certainly 100% aware of this, so everything you are witnessing today is a political EFFECT, not a political "cause" as some leaders wish to mislead us towards.
Everything you are being told about Berlin, in stages after 1894, 1904, 1907, and 1912, with gathering momentum, were EFFECTS, not CAUSES. That was, based on observation, outside powers with the intention to "divide and rule" Europe, by encroaching/encircling the major continental power, which has never changed throughout recent modern history. The ONLY factor which changed over the last few centuries, was the "major continental power" which had to be CONTROLLED by the outside power who wanted a competitive advantage. The historical parallel, is the "Chinese Century of Shame"-historicity, and is well-known at least to the 1.4 billion inhabitants of China today. Certainly, they also do not wish to become "carved up" and ruled over by outsiders again, for a second time. The template therefore predicts a similar outcome, that of the more encroachment/encirclement, the more likeliness of the "breakout attempt" in some possible future.
Obvious solution for a more stable world, stop the encroachment/encirclement.
Both historically (post-1900) as well as our recent history (post-2000) there seems little incentive for those with the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to do so, but rather the repeated attempts to search for tools to do such encroachment/encirclement FOR the outside power/s intent on gain.
Empires do not become dominant because they hand out candy and bouquets of flowers, as most realists are fully aware of, therefore the wise advice to always keep a just/wise "balance of powers. If not, fail.
Power flows to where the attention goes first, in geopolitics, in the form of political policies.
These can be studied by looking at the events themselves, not what another human being tells you (incl. this essay, which doesn't tell you anything, but implores you to start focusing on the well-known events themselves, from which one can then infer the underlying hidden policies, strategies, or objectives).
If you live in East Asia, beware of the "dividers".
The hawks will come looking for "buck catchers" and the doves will disguise it as the "helping friends"-narrative = i.e. the template of modern western imperialism. Hawks and doves working in close unison, although stated as being opposite poles.
They WILL come to you, same way as they came to the Ukraine, following the 1990s.
China has "understood".
India thinks it can "play the game" like France once did in Europe (becoming a "buck catcher" for the British Empire and USA), post-1900.
2
-
"Furthermore, British officials worked to emphasise the differences in the Indian army, in an attempt to prevent a unification of Indians
against British rule along the lines of race, nationality, religion, or caste (p49)...British officials introduced laws over the following years to
keep the army divided along caste and religious lines...Firstly, they increased the number of European troops that made up the army,
which decreased the level of Indian unity found in the older Indian army (p50) ... As Lord Ellenborough, a British politician who served as
Governor-General of British India from 1842-1844 stated: 'The fewer elements of combination there are in the native army the better,
and therefore the more nationalities and castes and religions, the more secure we shall be.'(p 53) ... As another British official, Lord
Elphinstone, wrote: 'Divide et Impera was the old Roman motto, and it should be ours'(p 54)." Stewart, N. (1951). Divide and Rule:
British Policy in Indian History. Science & Society, 15(1), (pp.49-57)
"In their reorganization of the army after the rebellion had been suppressed, British officials implemented the tactic of divide and rule in an attempt to prevent any future mutinies" Morrock, R. (1973). Heritage of Strife: The Effects of Colonialist "Divide and Rule" Strategy
upon the Colonized Peoples. Science & Society, 37(2), (pp.129-151)
2
-
The long shaddow of Western Imperialism, returns.
The "empires" strike again.
All of this was kickstarted with Western Imperialism, in 1904/05.
The people of Morocco (at the time, 1905) were carved up as a "divide and conquer"-technique and have since 1911 grown up under completely different empires, with different education, loyalties, leaderships, and hegemons.
One cannot "reverse" such a history, by ignoring the fact that the people today are not the same coherent mass as before 1905, when all were a part of the same kingdom.
Today, it is "divide and rule" yet again, as the USA, dragging along its junior partner Israel, are trying to set up Morocco against Algeria, as "buck catcher" to destabilize the entire MENA region.
Algeria is pro-China.
Pure coincidence, I'm sure 😮
Morocco, which received the "gift" of territory, per "ruling", is pro-USA. Its fabulously corrupted rich king, a parallel of the obscenely wealthy Arab sheiks of the post-1960s, also "favorites" of the American Century, and equally, also tools in a "divide and rule"-setup of the MENA region...
2
-
2
-
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
2
-
2
-
As bad as the Japanese occupation was, it was not Japan which caused most of the suffering in Korea, but western Imperialism.
This western imperialism, was the "big picture" reality, which gave rise to everything which followed in its wake.
Korea was first "signed away" by western powers against the backdrop of the own colonial ambitions for Asia, just before the Russo-Japanese War of 1904. The Korean appeal to these western hegemons by declaring the own neutrality, and wishing to remain outside of these colonial wars, was first acknowledged by these western powers, but when Japan ignored this neutrality and used Korea as staging area to attack Russia, these same western nations who saw an advantage in opposing Russian expansion (mainly GB and the USA) did nothing to uphold Korean neutrality and the subsequent step by step Japanese subjection. Note that while a European country's "neutrality" was "worth escalating a continental European war into a world war for" a few years later (Belgium, 1914), Korea in 1904 was not...
The final episode of this Era of Imperialism for Korea came with WW2. Korea was simply divided up in two parts, by the "winners" of this war, under the auspices of "wanting the best for the people", but without simply asking the people or their representatives what they wanted for themselves. An entirely random border was taken, and yet another nation in the world split into two parts, as "loot" of the winning systems.
Wiki: "The division of Korea began with the defeat of Japan in World War II. During the war, the Allied leaders considered the question of Korea's future after Japan's surrender in the war. The leaders reached an understanding that Korea would be liberated from Japan but would be placed under an international trusteeship until the Koreans would be deemed ready for self-rule.[1] In the last days of the war, the U.S. proposed dividing the Korean peninsula into two occupation zones (a U.S. and Soviet one) with the 38th parallel as the dividing line. The Soviets accepted their proposal and agreed to divide Korea.[2]"
For the west, the new "South Korea" was simply a new jumping off point in order to safeguard their previous "loot" (colonial concessions/spheres of influence in Asia), or as staging areas for further potentially possible conquests in Asia, and to stand against the Soviet occupation of N. China (Manchuria).
The divide and rule/conquer strategy which effected Korea for the last 150 years, is an insidious tool of domination, control, and rule (direct or indirect).
It hides itself behind a plethora of "kind words" but it reveals itself when studying the actions, and actually looking at a map, and what was happening elsewhere, both in regional proximity, as well as thousands of miles away in the capital cities of the world hegemons.
"Divide and rule, weaken and conquer, love and enslave, these are three tenets of politics" ― Bangambiki Habyarimana
These "friends" came from outside, and "loved" and "enslaved" people all over the globe and set local groups up against each other, using a variety of means: favoratism, money, their own emotions (often the effects of the own histories)...
South Koreans might consider themselves lucky today, and blessed with "economic well-being" and "good friends" from the Collective West, but this current "luck" is again only an effect of its current geographical location on the map. South Korea is again simply useful in standing up to a (now united/strong) China, same as Japan was useful during the Cold War (contain communism in Asia).
Any temporary "friends" will be immediately dropped by the western hegemons the moment the big picture reality is no longer the case.
Sadly, a chosen own neutrality means nothing in the realist world, for as Prof. John Mearsheimer stated: the self-preservation instincts of the global hegemons comes first, and "little South Korea" is in a fracture zone between the tectonic plates created by empires.
In this reality, local Asian people are being set up anew, to surround the western hegemons' new rival, which is China.
Japan, South Korea, the Philippenes, etc. on the Pacific side, and others on the Asian side (India, talks of "independent Tibet", Thailand elections being meddled in by the NED, etc.) in a grand encirclement strategy as history repeats...
2
-
2
-
What is the duty of most the western press?
It is to create narratives.
The future of (quote) "evil Russia".
Upon zooming out, divide and rule always unfolds the same way.
And always functions the same way: set people up against each other, or use existing divisions by amplifying these, a chief means being favoratism of certain key strategically located regions (in Europe for example, in the past it was France and Great Britain).
When things invariably go wrong, blame the people so "divided" by own premeditated policies, or the leaders of these people.
Whether the desired regions are democracies or autocracies does not even matter: if democracies, just blame the people, and if autocracies blame the leaderships. Or both, also doesn't really matter either. Accuracy is not important, and the overlapping multi-layered divide and rule systems in each seperate system will take care of everything as eternal struggle for "the truth" is fought out in books, documentaries, debates, journals, political events, usually accompanied by incredible amounts of carefully and meticulously researched data.
What is revealed by careful undistorted observation though, is the direction the expansion takes place (see below comment about creating future "staging areas") and a few core methods.
"In May 2022, US journalist Casey Michel called for the "decolonization" of Russia. In his view, the dissolution of the former Soviet Union should be continued, to end the rule of Moscow over the republics of Russia.[28] Weeks later the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe held an event discussing "the need to 'decolonize' Russia" because of "Russia's barbaric war on Ukraine", as they put it, calling for a conversation about Russia's "interior empire" and noting "Moscow's dominion over many indigenous non-Russian nations".[Wiki]
Or search for "Prep aring for the Dis.solution of the Rus.sian Fede ration" on You Tube
Go back to how the USA "dissoluted" Native American tribal lands in the past...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars
...then simply scale this development up, and one can see "Russia" in its potential desired future for the strategists in the Western world. Advance on step at a time. One staging area to the next (see below essay).
Russia tomorrow.
The techniques are the same.
All that is needed is a few local "new nations/states" (ex-Russian Federation) to do the heavy lifting, to encroach on and encircle the next in line, which is the real goal: China.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Keeping Germany as "down" as possible, and keeping Russia as "out" of any comprehensive European solution as possible, for mutually agreed upon comprehensive security agreements is a recurring issue in European systems interacting. It mainly turned out as very beneficial for outside powers, especially the USA.
Not only logically, but also statistically, should Western continental Europe and Eastern continental Europe ever unite, with shared good relations to China, it would overpower the USA as world hegemon. Basically, keeping Central European "brains" (innovation and technology) and Russian "muscle" (manpower, strategic location, plus raw materials) apart, has a long history which spanned two empires. The British Empire before World War 2, as stated in Mackinder's Pivot of History (1904) and the new American Century after 1945.
It started a long time ago, with the British Empire setting out to avoid more unity, and breaking up the Three Kaiser League as a stated goal. "Disraeli also achieved a hidden objective. Beaconsfield revealed to Henry Drummond Wolff that the British mission to the Congress of Berlin had two major objectives. Next to making a tolerable settlement for the Porte, our great object was to break up, and permanently prevent, the alliance of the three Empires, and I maintain there never was a general diplomatic result more completely effected. Of course, it does not appear on the protocols; it was realised by personal influence alone, both on Andrassy [the Austrian representative] and Bismarck. The members of the Three Emperors' League were Austria, Germany, and Russia. The Congress of Berlin drove a wedge between Russia and the other two members. Germany formed the Dual Alliance with Austria in 1879 to protect one another from possible Russian aggression. The treaty remained in effect even after Russia requested a renewal
of the Three Emperors' League in 1881. The Dreikaiserbund [Three Emperors' League] never did recover from the Eastern crisis while Disraeli was in office, and its later revival after Gladstone put 'Beaconsfieldism' into reverse took a different and less stable form." from THE FOURTH PARTY AND CONSERVATIVE EVOLUTION, 1880-1885 by KEITH RICHMON OWEN, B.A., M.A. A DISSERTATION IN HISTORY Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in August, 2000 (p.25)
Therefore, speaking about the post-2000 attempt of keeping Russia "out" of Europe, by encroaching on it with NATO expansion might well not be a "mistake" as stated by David T. Pyne (historian), but a geopolitical strategy, and it has a long history. If it were a mere "mistake", it would be amazingly recurring:
- attempts to break up the Three Kaiser League (by London)
- attempts to break up Treaty of Bjorko (by London)
- Versailles (Limitrophe States as a barrier in Eurasia, by London in conjunction with Washington DC)
- The quasi "declaration" of the Cold War (Churchill/"Iron Curtain" speech)
- Truman Doctrine (by Washington DC)
From wiki, and regarding the theory:
"Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
From wiki: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the (Washington DC) administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[20]" Or as the old insider joke went: NATO's function was "to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out." (Lord Ismay)
Whether these are real "mistakes" (sic.) or a concerted strategy lurks behind as ulterior motive, remains hidden.
2
-
Keep a lookout for the ingroup jargon.
In case you don't know what that means, it is highly likely you are already in an ingroup, but not aware of it.
The next level to the ingroup, is "the cult."
When one cannot recognize the typical cult behaviour of devout compliance to an ideology, one is already firmly embedded in "the cult" of a belief system.
Telling someone who is in a cult, or a belief system, that they are indoctrinated, is usually a waste of time.
Ideologically indoctrinated politicians and power players who lie, and the warriors they incite to fight to spread their ideologies are the root cause of all evil in the world.
One doesn't even have to infer much, since they will tell you straight in your face, because they are so rich, proud, hectoring, and squibbing that they are blind as to what they are a part of.
So far, so good.
Most people will happily agree to the above, since their "finger" is already "pointing" elsewhere.
Blissfully unaware, that...
According to the dictionary, an ideology is an organized set of political or economic ideas... for example, "democracy" and "capitalism," both of which are ideologies.
If one tries to list all the ideologically inspired lies and deceptions by politicians who have started/bandwagoned wars to (quote) "make the world safe for democracy" the list will be long and the victims uncountable, because the ideologues don't even bother to count them.
Except of course when it's "the other side". Then they list them exactly, and continuously create Hollywood movies and TV documentaries about the "other sides". In these (his)stories, "we" (ingroup) are always the good guys. Anything else will not "sell" well.
Millions of deaths and total ruin emanating from London and Washington DC to spread their ideologies and empires, and that's just the wars since 1945. Not even to mention the death and destruction of events before that. It is futile to educate the masses who are going into the trenches about the harmful effects of war. People already know it, but they are powerless against the forces that are leading entire regions into war. These top politicians, who sit in sinecure comfort in peacetime and have bunkers in wartime, have no intention of bearing the consequences of their decisions.
Carl Jung on psychoanalytic dicta: "If you cannot understand why someone did something, look at the consequences and infer the motivation," and similarly, Jordan Peterson: "If you can't understand why someone is doing something, look at the consequences of their actions, whatever they might be, and then infer the motivations from their consequences."
The so-called "collective West" is inundated with ideologues.
2
-
2
-
2
-
The biggest danger to the world are ideoligically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
2
-
@woke2woke153 I know the "story."
It is the appeal to emotion.
It was already countered by Ben Gurion in the 1930s when he asked "how is what happened to us, their problem?" and "we stole their land/country." (paraphrased)
Reality at time? The people of the Levant/Palestine were not responsible for the suffering of Jews in Eastern Europe.
European leaders took the easy way out, and unloaded the burden of their historical guilt, onto others who were not consulted.
It is a very easy biblical logic, and moral question already pointed out as "put yourself in their shoes." Or, with re. to Europeans, that of NIMBY: not caring what happened far away, when Europeans litarally shipped their "problem" abroad, to the powerless peoples of the Levant.
Was resulted out of that was resistence to imperialism, with a clear causal chain of effects.
Today there is always the tendency to skip the history which isn't convenient, and "start" the timeline somewhere in the middle of the entire story, so it sounds better.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ERH-ph5gb I made the same statement about the aristocracy/nobility recently in a warning to Greenlanders when the "hedge fund babies" come to their shore to graze everything off. These outsiders are not connected to the land and have little moral grounds to care much about anything but short-term profit.
I wrote: "Machiavelli: "And it is seen by experience that only princes and armed republics make very great progress, whereas mercenary forces do nothing but harm …"
Read the books on strategy and the allegories about power, and read them as INTENDED, not as somebody interprets them FOR you...
Machiavelli stated that it is the "princes" (connected to the lands, often hereditary gatekeepers) who actually cared about a region, because these regions were the centers of their own "insider" wealth/power. But when the "mercenaries" (foreigners, vested interests) arrive, as foreigners who are in it only for the profit/gain, that is when entire regions are dragged down in circles of international corruption. When the "mercenaries" of international hedge funds, mining companies, foreign armies, foreign-approved politicians, and other examples of ivory towers ("revolving doors" models of power) step in and build up, you will not rid yourself of these (mostly) outsiders easily again." (end of)
Once these locusts swarm in, they will graze off the wealth of entire regions.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What most MSM and established historians seem to forget, whilst proudly advocating the "fighting for democracy" virtue signalling, is that it had been the democratic "liberal empires" (USA/GB) which had lain the foundation of Europe`s demise around the year 1900. From the position of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE which afforded the slight edge in power, which was then exploited by seeing to it that others where kept "down" and "out" of the reach of resources which were needed to succeed.
These resources were controlled via that slight edge which geography afforded, at that was true at ALL times. It is a systemic conclusion, which unlike all other theories out there, is true at ALL times, never mind how far one goes back into the past. Those who carry out such "rule," are not going to tell us how they rule by division on ALL tiers, and how they have ruled by division on all tiers for thousands of years. It is about the oldest trick in the book, to rule by division from a position of POWER. They will tell us, their "good fools," that it is all about the good vs. the bad but guess what they are NOT telling us? They never state HOW they manage it.
The top tiers divide and rule, and this functions in one direction only: down, to the base, which is "we the people."
They divide us, but we have no way or means to divide them, the top tiers, in return. The disinformation playbook of the empire will strike back when the empire feels threatened, and their MO will be predictable:
The Fake: Conduct counterfeit narrative and try to pass it off as legitimate research.
The Blitz: Harass those who speak out against the empire and its friends.
The Diversion: Manufacture uncertainty where little or none exists.
The Screen: Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies.
The Fix: Manipulate government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policy.
This closely mirrors the empire's habit of using human beings as tools, as "barriers", "vassals", as "taxpayers" or other forms of voluntary/involuntary support. The empire has ways to employ human beings in direct or indirect manners, including secondary and tertiary functions of support.
These are all typical divide and rule strategies, which are employed on all tiers of systems intent on aggressive gain, and which are therefore typical of all systems of gain, including capitalist and democratic systems. The technique is common in the systems of "capitalism/corporatism" and "democracy/globalism" and can be examined in meta studies. It's almost guaranteed that as soon as one reaches the "sensitive zones" of the empire, the MSM flak will get real thick...
These systems are systemically infested by sociopaths and psychopaths of all kinds, who put interests and profit first, above all else.
Key words for further research:
1) 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths
2) Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy
3) The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
4) Dr Namie's research revealing the "Four Bully Types"
"As long as people believe in absurdities, people will commit atrocities." - Voltaire
"All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed, they must rely exclusively on force."
"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell, 1984
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The sunk cost fallacy moment is nearing fast.
It's "1916" on the timeline for Europe/Eurasia...AGAIN.
The collective hive mind in the capital cities in the USA/collective West (Allies 1916 = NATO post-1990) must decide soon whether to "write the Ukraine off" or "invest more". Do not expect a wise answer from those who do not intend to suffer from any effects their own decisions will result in. According to the strategies of the wise, it states "if all else fails, retreat" (see the 36 stratagems of power).
They want their "Versailles moment" as "victory"...AGAIN.
The framers/manipulators in power have already "tried everything else" and failed, but do not expect them to "retreat" and lose their "investments." They will "Pivot to Asia" (Iran, South China Sea, or thereabouts) and sacrifice your daughter (current debates) before they send their own sons off to the wars they have lain the foundations for. That was not different around 1900, than it was around the year 2000.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FREEDOM vs. CONSCRIPTION
I just came here from a video with thousands of angry comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, Germans, Poles, etc. stating "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go", or anger at incompetent politicians. They mirror those made by thousands of comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand how power works. It does not matter what they think. It was what millions of young men already said a century ago in the leadup to their governments' declarations of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me".
JOHN MEARSHEIMER THEORY/SYSTEMIC ANALYSIS
There can only be a few "winners". The rest are the systemic cannon fodder for the gain of those who pass the buck. The "buck passer" is of course the weakest of all minds. Democratic systems of course offer the perfect environments for the opportune to practice eternal "passing the buck": none of these leaders ever did anything wrong (sic.), nobody ever decided anything bad (sic.), nobody ever lied, and everybody can always simply point the finger, everywhere else. The perfect systems for all kinds of cowards, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and lower-tiered finger-pointers...
Here is what they did in both cases (around 1900, and again around the year 2000). Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power in times of peace, by the aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) by men who knew that neither they, nor their own offspring or friends, would ever have to face the consequences of an own unjustifiable standpoint. That means doing to another state/country/alliance what they would never consider acceptable, if done onto them: encircle them, encroach on them, restrict a fair access to the globe's resources.
How do we know this is true?
Because it actually happened, and can be observed.
"I no longer listen to what people say, I just watch what they do. Behavior never lies." - Winston Churchill
Yes, Winnie. What can be observed, and plotted on the map, is not a "lie".
Humdeedum some time passes. By golly, no more personal "freedom", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the muddy trench to enforce Step 1. Guess who "wins"? The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup over the world. Those who hold the GEOGRAPHICALLY opportune advantage of the "higher ground" or the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a "bark" by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War). Moscow was tacidly nodding off the observed reality, without too much interverence at this point in time, since gaining full spectrum domination in Eastern Europe was more important at the time.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
§§§footnote
The concept of the "straight out lie" is related to a variety of other terms within the spectrum of "political techniques," commonly defined as "strategic ambiguity;" and/or incl. such concepts as "lying by omitting," misdirection, misconstrued, spinning, framing, all either intentionally, or sometimes unintentionally.
2
-
2
-
2
-
PART 2
Regarding "the bully", and human nature, there is a direct connection between how individuals and states act and react: obviously, since states are made up of individuals with an intent of gain motive. One can therefore draw comparissons between the micro level of individuals or small scale systems (society and companies), and the macro level of corporations, big power interests, and therefore states and empires.
They all act, and react in similar ways, and the connecting link is strategy.
Dr. Gary Namie conducted an exhaustive series of micro level studies to conclude that there are four categories of toxic bullies in society and the workplace, based on the carefull observation and close encounters with other human beings. The four types of bullies are the Screaming Mimi, the Two-Headed Snake, the Constant Critic, and the Gatekeeper.
Screaming Mimi is the fist-wielding screamer who chooses a public setting in order to vociferously point fingers in your face...
Two-Headed Snake is the Jekyll and Hyde back-stabber, who steals the credit for the hard work of others. They smile and are 100% in control of body language with studied "backpats" and superficial compliments, yet behind the back spread lies, rumor, innuendo in order to damage reputations of adversaries...
The Constant Critic is another one of the "finger pointing"-variety of of "friends", who's not above falsifying information, or burning documents, to pin “mistakes” on others...
The Gatekeepers withhold resources others need to succeed, jealously guarding own privileges against other systems trying to make it...
Our history books are full of warnings against the "screaming Mimi" variety, characterized by images of a fist-wielding screaming Hitler, yet when it comes to other bully tactics, the inhabitants of various systems of gain become remarkably acquiescent, apologetic, and complacent about observed, or unobserved actions of bullying. Bullying is of course nothing else but a strategy, and because the other three bully types are easily disguised, the overwhelming number of citizens of western style democracies go to bed each night, secure in the knowledge that they live in superior systems (democracy/capitalism). Both democracy and capitalism are designed to overpower and conquer other systems, but the means they use are more difficult to spot.
Not for the first time in history, the opportunity to sign a mutually agreeable comprehensive European security agreement was bypassed, to the mutual detriment of all European systems: "President Dmitry Medvedev presented the initial proposal for a revision of the European security system during his visit to Berlin in June 2008. The proposal included the signature of a legally binding treaty (involving all states and organisations active in Europe). The Russian proposal has been subsequently repeated on many occasions, including by the Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov in his address to the UN General Assembly in September 2008 ... During World Policy Conference in Evian, France on 8 October, the Russian president explained the original idea more precisely by presenting the five principles on which the new system should be based. The key element of Medvedev’s plan remains the postulate of equal security for all, which, if implemented, would mean that no actions that might be perceived as threatening the security of others would be allowed ..." CES Commentary, Center for Eastern Studies, 16.10.2008
Empires come in 4 toxic flavors: The Screaming Mimi, the Two-Headed Snake, the Constant Critic, and the Gatekeeper.
We as individuals are constantly warned about the first, but we should watch out for what we're not being told: keep a lookout for the last three.
To "avoid avoiding war" by the strategy of "pushing until something snaps" is one characteristic.
Bullies also manipulate millions of people, via mostly loyal squires or henchmen.
Re. the question why all the observed reality is allowed to happen, is based on human nature, and the nature of our prefered systems of capitalism/democracy.
2
-
@neutralitystudies It is actually not so difficult to understand why and how events unfold.
Throughout history, those powers with a geographical advantage simply had to "avoid, avoiding war", and employ a series of strategies to claim innocence.
1) drag feet/delay action
2) push, and push, until something snaps on the other side
How our leaders avoid "avoiding war", and then fabricate a racket...in three easy steps.
Step 1:
Engineer a situation, or take on a standpoint one would never accept as "acceptable", if placed in the same situation oneself, and refuse to budge. Ignore all warnings.
Step 2:
Watch on as the situation deteriorates.
Find a few "good fwiends", who "see things the same way", and refuse to budge.
Send around a few good guys, who will try their best...
Ignore all further warnings.
As "crisis" turns to gloom, do as little as you can possibly get away with.
Especially, don't sign anything worded in such a way that it would actually avoid war.
Step 3:
When the guns start firing: Here comes the most important step. Do as the Bible says (lol) and point the finger everywhere else, and wash own hands in innocence (using the easy "Pontius Pilate"-way out).
2
-
To address the many comments here about the ability of those under the systemic control of the USA/collective West (incl. think tanks) to ignore reality like the ongoing, obvious attempt at "ethnic cleansing VIA terror aka genocide." It's a subsection of divide-and-rule, by the CONTROLLING powers who want something: gain.
Apart = separate = divide.
Apartheid = divide and rule
Critical question: how does a minority CONTROL a majority? How does a faraway empire, CONTROL a large group of people? Correct answer, call "them" (outgroup) a "potential tyranny" and enslave them step-by-step.
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. The lines in the sands were historically drawn by "empires" to achieve gain, and are currently USED by "empires" to perpetuate gain for the own systems.
Historically, who gained from DIVISION?
Who would have gained from a fair UNITY on the Arabian Peninsula, when the faraway "empires" came for them after WW1? Correct answer: the people who lived there.
After WW1 the British- and French empires used the divide-and-rule technique, to carve up the Arabian Penisula and subvert all the people living here. The lines were drawn to carve up the oild resources, to AVOID one power from gaining too much of the POWER which these reserves would afford them.
The "divide-and-rule strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it creates ingroups of "empire fans" who gain and can become very very rich, even as millions of others suffer.
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 neighbours (Europe/Eurasia), and the misguided logic they imposed on their neighbours 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). After WW! European leaders who did not understand the logic of Chesterton's fence, and destroyed what they did not understand (European balance of Power, as per Concert of Europe, 1815). Who was "let in" and who was "left out" of such systemic "line drawing" agreements/accords?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Chesterton%27s_fence
Zoom into the present...
Abrahamic Accords = Divide and rule of and over direct neighbours (Arabian Penisula), and the misguided logic they imposed on their neighbours 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 "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, or the "my precious borders"-mentality of ideologues, 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 neighbours (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.
2