Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Lex Clips"
channel.
-
3
-
Yup.
Unfortunately, the people of the Levant (most of which are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries.
First it was Rome/Constantinople, then the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (ME was the "playground" during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent: classical "divide and rule". As stated, the USA would rather see the region in perpetual state of "politics by other means" (Clausewitz/On War) rather than lose the grip on it.
For that the constant violence all over the ME are very convenient in propaganda, to rile up the masses with (quote) "beheaded baby talk"...
After the watershed in history which was WW1 (end of the rule of the Ottomans), what was the status quo and who intended to change it?
The indigenous population, or the EUROPEAN "empires" and their policies and agendas?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@crawkn I also actually used "mainly" which means that I don't exclude other factors contributing towards any measurable "more peaceful world."
The problem with the theory you stated is that there is no way to prove whether there would be no more wars/very few wars, if only the entire world were composed of democracies. And to get there, and destroy other forms of government, a democratic political system has to lie, and condone killing (all imoral behaviour), which then defeats the objective.
Democracy is the heliotropic model, which simply strives for perfection but can never reach it, due to human imperfection, which (granted) has a pacifying domestic angle to it, but with regards to International Relations, it is an entirely different game.
The systems of democracy, coupled with capitalism/corporatism are as much systems intent on gain (Internationalism/Globalism/Imperialism), and playing dirty games, as any other political system. These "games" can always lead to wars.
1
-
@crawkn Yes, all agreed.
It isn't possible to measure things with absolute accuracy which are abstract in nature. That incl. all systems of power and influence, -isms, and all concepts relating to political power.
Personally I prefer to look at the systems of gain only, cutting out all the hubris and biases, and then infer which strategies of power are/were used, both in the current context (current affairs), as well as in the historical analyses.
When one gets down to the fundamentals in systems which intend to want to "win" (that incl. democracy as system) one can see there are basically two forces at play: those systems which wish to unite and grow, and those systems ranged against that, which wish to the avoid growth of other systems by division. They all resort to strategies of power to achieve own growth at the expense of other systems in a zero sum reality.
You can go up and down the tiers of power and systems, and see that it boils down to unity vs. division. Those that gained unity for the own system, try to avoid other systems achieving it.
1
-
@crawkn The complexity theory you explained, is a study in itself.
There is another layer to the interaction, which is how individuals or groups consider solving problems, which is either problem-focussed or solution-focussed (not a dichotomy, because these are nuanced concepts).
If one falls into the trap of considering problems as complex, one would tend to focus on the problems. If one focusses on the solution which needs to be implemented, one can work towards finding workable compromises.
I've studied history and current affairs for 35 years years, and every major event taking place, or which ever took place historically worth writing down as relevant, fits the 2 main categories (unity/division).
That does not mean that other criteria are/were not important to individuals, either alive today or at any point in history. It simply means that any personal opinions matter little, if they were not implemented. What ultimately counts is what is/was implemented, not what anybody thinks (ideas, ideology, opinions, etc.)
If you wish to do the test, you'll find all events fit these categories: create unity, division, not relevant.
Ghengis Khan? An empire which achieved partial Eurasian unity.
Arranged against that, were the forces which tried to avoid that (division).
What happened elsewhere, was outside of the scope (for example, events in South America had no impact on the events in Eurasia).
The Treaty of Versailles?
It was a divide and rule strategy by outside powers, which divided Europeans with a "ruling." One simply wipes away all the different opinions, cognitive biases (perceptions), -isms at play (incl. political movements), individual emotions, etc. to realize that what was actually implemented by those in positions of power, which was a division of Europeans. Qui bono, from European "division"?
The main category in this type of analysis is actually to figure out what was "not relevant/applicable" for the events unfolding the way they did. Once one can do that, one can figure out how the powers that actually steer unfolding events, interact, using strategies of power.
If one continuously falls into the trap of considering that everything is complex and messy, one of two main results are created on individual levels: 1) analysts get bogged down by the details, missing the big picture, and 2) people avert attention, usually steered by their own emotions when looking at events, and turn away. Such distraction and disinterest (indifference, ignorance, complacency) can then be exploited by power players.
1
-
1
-
@crawkn Personally I'm not a "divider," so my standpoint is to support leaders who aim for balanced powers, by creating unity to create a balance, so that no one system is in a position to overpower any other.
That is ancient and often-repeated advice according to Polybius or Hume. If a system loses its power, it cannot stand up to another power, on equal terms, and it will eventually get overpowered.
The focus of every system should always be to ensure that it is on an equal footing to all other systems, even so-called "friends."
It's what happened to the British Empire.
It failed to establish a European balance of power with an equal power to the USA, while it was still strong, around 1900 or so, so that Washington, D.C. had little problem with dismantling the British Empire using economic warfare techniques after WW2. Many people don't know how the USA did this: Washington, D.C. used the divide and rule strategy of power, to break up the individual parts of the British Empire, by making better trade offers to the individual British Dominions (as super "nutshell version"). This is described in great detail in the book Super Imperialism by the economist Hudson, a few yt channels, and specific books, but is not widely known.
1