Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "American Veterans Center"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
The USA, dragging along its weak "collective West", practices colonialism for corporations. (aka systemic expansion, hidden behind cool sounding stories for the plebs, of "freedom" and "fighting for democracy").
The technique is age-old: divide-and-rule.
------
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups (e.g., Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
SETTLER COLONIALISM MORPHED INTO
CORPORATE COLONIALISM
The last 500 years of European/white settler colonialism as a subsection of the divide-and-rule technique. The strategy was "farms/forts" and a systemic, slow advance into the lands of ingenious peoples all over the world. Same happened in North America, Australia, New Zealand, the Levant, South America, Southern Africa, etc.
Broken promises, broken treaties, looking for excuses to make the next 'step' (ratchet principle). The only places the strategy of slow ponderous expansion failed was where the local systems were too numerous or organized (East Asia). The "template" might have various regional differences, but the end effect is always the same. Slow, step-by-step advance of the own ideology, economic systems, corporations and political power.
Simply exchange the "forts/farms" of the past 500 years, with the current "military bases/corporations" to "see" the technique.
1
-
@stevereal- The big picture.
The "biggest" of all.
During WW2, the British Empire bombed itself into destruction, by destroying the BALANCE OF POWER.
You see, Steve, if even 5-year old kids understand the concept of a COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE, but hordes of rich, proud, hectoring, squibbing, carniverous adults do not, and allow themselves to be deceived, there is no hope for entire regions and continents of the planet.
Little kids playing "King of the Mountain" (a game) already instinctively grasp the concept of the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER, because once they have themselves spit, clawed and yanked their way to the "top of the mountain," suddenly the "winner" invents a NEW RULE out of the blue, making all forms of "spitting, clawing, and yanking" illegal...
You understand?
After steering the British Empire in a convenient position of weakness, and tanking its industry/production with the allocation of MARKETS, American leaders wanted a 'service economy' for the USA (following after the 1970s/1980s), with the manual labor outsourced onto the rimlands (geopolitics). It is an old Roman strategy of power to create dependencies. A core heartland, surrounded by entire countries as 'workshops'/dollar tributaries for the American Century. This was written out as a desirable outcome, an agenda, in the 1940s ...
"In the early Cold War, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson combined the concepts of preponderance and bandwagoning. As he put it, the United States was going to have to be "the locomotive at the head of mankind," while the rest of the world was going to be "the caboose." (wiki)
Note, to all not old enough to know, a "caboose" is the dirty car at the back of the freight train, were all the riff-raff go.
1
-
The price for a "flattened Germany" would be paid after WW2.
Of course, Germany as a "power", benefited the British Empire.
With this "power" wiped out, Empire became indefensible.
Empire's "fwiends"?
Of course, they had their own agendas.
Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
[Google: The American_Century]
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
[britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power]
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
[Google: Operation_Unthinkable 1944]
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
Stalin quickly and instinctively figured out that Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe...
[Google: Percentages_agreement Churchill and Stalin]
Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. Here's Greece. I'll take the rest, including your friends Poland 100%. What are you going to do about it?"
1