Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "The New Atlas"
channel.
-
240
-
219
-
115
-
93
-
59
-
57
-
47
-
The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
This is the theory.
According to the scientific process, these proclaimed "rules" must now be countered, by trying to find exceptions to these two rules.
According to the concept of "meaning of words" all exceptions to the rules which have been proclaimed, must be questioned: does this war for which the foundation was lain, or the war which was instigated, not avoided, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, lead to disunity in another region of the planet (another continent). The theory, as stated by the words used, is not interested in anything else. It can either be falsified or it cannot.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory."
Here are the critical questions.
If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental division?
How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"?
45
-
42
-
42
-
24
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. 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-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa 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 in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, 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. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
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." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being 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 the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. 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) regarding Eurasia for the template. 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-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
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", 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 millions and 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.
10
-
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, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), 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 up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side").
For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, 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. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere.
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (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 (1945-1991), 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 of divide-and-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. After a short halt called "Cold War", 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 which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) 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.
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 muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this.
The bunker boys and manipulators, are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
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. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours.
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".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France, and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them.
This is divide-and-rule.
10
-
9
-
9
-
"The term "banana wars" was popularized in 1983[2] by writer Lester D. Langley. Langley wrote several books on Latin American history and American intervention, including: The United States and the Caribbean, 1900–1970 and The Banana Wars: An Inner History of American Empire, 1900–1934. His work regarding the Banana Wars encompasses the entire United States tropical empire, which overtook the western hemisphere, spanning both Roosevelt presidencies. The term was popularized through this writing and portrayed the United States as a police force sent to reconcile these warring tropical countries, lawless societies and corrupt politicians; essentially establishing U.S. reign over tropical trade. Hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Latin American civilians were killed in the Banana Wars."
Spot the imperialist MO?
The "just sending a few cops, to restore peace" in the hood of our "backyards"?
The "they are all corrupt, but we are squeaky clean, so they must be stopped"-narrative?
The pointing finger and the associated "waging finger" is a dead giveaway of every other imperialist, acting under the guise of "creating a better world".
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
You don't have to study thousands of books and watch endless debates on the topic "How US foreign policy works."
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and using friends, and is hiding behind the mainstream stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others, any which way.
The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
The imperialists and their apologist even chant the same slogans today, and still use the same strategies of expansion as they did 500, 200 and 100 years ago, but are too ignorant and indifferent to either know or care. As always, the warning voices of the sane halves are ignored, downplayed, "finger pointed" at as "unpatriotic," or as being "in bed with the enemy", and many other forms of equally "rhyming history." It is what they spend billions on every year to obfuscate reality, so their empires can keep on marching marching marching marching to the jolly tunes...
The systems and corporations came in droves for SYSTEMIC EXPANSION and all they ever wanted was peace...peace...PEACE....PIECE...
A little piece land with own laws over here for a little American/NATO base.
A nice little piece of capital over there, of the Nordstream project.
A piece of the Panama Canal ...just "wanted back" mind you.
A tiny sliver of those Ukrainian/Caucasian raw materials.
A nice little chunk of real estate, in the Levant
Just a little little bit of a percentage of political influence EVERYwhere.
And, let's not forget, ALL of Greenland... ALL of it...
The meddling created by the own proactive divide-and-rule strategy of power then results in effects:
Imperialistic meddling is always a CAUSE to which there will be a resulting EFFECT.
6
-
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".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon.
This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul rescinded).
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 strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. The conflagration that took place after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 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...
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as a "advantage" see footnote), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them.
No this is not a "conspiracy theory". This is divide-and-rule.
-------------------------------
Footnote:
Note that according to Machiavelli, the "princes" connected to the land and who benefited from their hereditary rule were also the GATEKEEPERS and were connected to what they saw as "theirs." OUTSIDERS (internationalists/globalists) who came/come or the profit and gain are NOT "connected" to the land at all, and place their own interests, often vested interests, BEFORE the people who live on the land. This narrative is distorted into meaning that "to be a Machiavelli is to be an a-hole" which is a distortion of what the book was about. Machiavelli states clearly to keep ones "princes" in POWER, for to lose them would mean losing the GATEKEEPERS, who via their own vested interests, also protect the people who live in entire regions of the world. Via Trojan Horses, "democracies" can be CAPTURED (culturally-, economically-, politically-, emotionally and militarily), as a process which can be studied as the actors reveal themselves through their actions/events.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
US Congressperson Dan Crenshaw (note his military background, therefore knowledge about strategies) recently stated re. the concept of "rather letting them fight over there" (ref.to the strategy of "the proxy"), after a 40 billion aid package to the Ukraine: “Yeah, because investing in the destruction of our adversary’s military, without losing a single American troop, strikes me as a good idea. You should feel the same.” (in a "shame game" with Republicans via Twitter who voted against the aid package).
Yup.
A "great idea" (sic.) to fund others fighting over there, so we don't have to fight them, and earn some "donations" along the way. What's there not to like?
One might think that this is "anecdotal", but as Napoleon said only the coward won't tell you what he thinks in your face. And there are a ton of cowards in the field of politics.
One might think whatever one wants about Dan Crenshaw, but at least he is honest.
If anybody ends up in a muddy trench, it's not his fault.
Of course, its never the fault of the "system" he's in called "world alpha" either, since it's a free world, and if you're stupid enough to end up in the "muddy trench" fighting so that men like him (or, his "buddies" in "the system") can rake in obscene profits in the rackets they will always vote against avoiding, it's not his issue.
He'll be in church on Sundays, praying the loudest, and he'll be on twitter on Monday, making fun of those not smart enough.
I assume, he'll have his "flock" of supporters, irrelevant of what he utters.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The USA is the most warlike nation in the history of the world due to its desire to impose American values on other countries and make them the mirror image of themselves. Jimmy Carter, when he said that, obviously alluded to US strategy which they copied from the Roman Empire. On Hawaii, they took it to extremes, turning the local culture into a "Disney World"-style "cultural experience" for hambuger munching, Coke slurping overweight ignoramuses from the mainland, as entertaiment (Roman "Bread and Circusses"-strategy for the masses).
What made Eurooeans think their "empires" would fare any better than Native Americans (§§§footnote), stuck into the "cabooses" of the American Century, turned into "cultural experiences" to be mass-consumed?
See the definition of a "caboose", and who said it. It wasn't me. It was the planners of the American Century, when they discussed the future of Europeans, INCL. THE BRITISH EMPIRE.
Reality? One can "conquer" a system using other means: debt, for example. John Quincy Adams said "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." Woodrow Wilson stated in 1917: "England and France have not the same views with regard to peace that we have by any means. When the war is over we can force them to our way of thinking because by that time they will, among other things, be financially in our hands ...". In a capitalist society, debt is a good way to first entrap, then liberate those who had overleveraged of their arduously assembled assets. States are amoral: they do not act out of benevolence for other systems. With World War 1 the Europe of pre-1914 had either destroyed itself or was overleveraged in debt, and that was going to be exploited in the realist world.
While London was occupied trying to play "divide and rule"-games with their continental neighbors, the USA was playing "divide and rule"-games with EUROPE. Europe of course, from THEIR perspective, incl. GB/British Empire..
§§§footnote
The US is "the most warlike nation in the history of the world (due to its desire to impose American values on other countries)" - Jimmy Carter, 2019
5
-
5
-
5
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players.
Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
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." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
The reason I always recommend these books first is because it points to how divide-and-rule is implemented, even though it is never mentioned. Anybody who knows how divide-and-rule is implemented, can read any book and then recognize the tell-tale details revealing the strategy. This is divide-and-rule, a long-term strategy of power which is revealed by the events, not the words used by analysts who are all biased to an extent. The overall strategy is divide-and-rule, and one can implement it with a few key advantages, mainly:
1) the distance from the evolving events
2) the POWER (economic, political, military, financial) to afford advantages to own instruments of power
3) the time to wait, without compunction, granted by the luxury of 1) "distance," to await how events one has contributed to, unfold.
We in search of unity, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature.
The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector).
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
5
-
The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
This is the theory.
According to the scientific process, these proclaimed "rules" must now be countered, by trying to find exceptions to these two rules.
According to the concept of "meaning of words" all exceptions to the rules which have been proclaimed, must be questioned: does this war for which the foundation was lain, or the war which was instigated, not avoided, "false flagged" into being, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, lead to disunity in another region of the planet (another continent). The theory, as stated by the words used, is not interested in anything else. It can either be falsified or it cannot.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, which is that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory." That IS the premier priority of the powers not IN Eurasia, and still is.
Here are the critical questions.
If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division?
How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"?
Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power.
In a nutshell: Implement and fund delusional propaganda games. Nothing of substance, with the implemented events often the exact opposite of the the loudly proclaimed "values". In the background, keep other systems either down or out of the own systems of gain and luxury life (50% for us, the minority), on ALL tiers, often by force, coercian, or at gunpoint, if it cannot be bought or corrupted, all accompanied by continuous flurry of words without meaning, spread by the exact systems which gain from keeping everything the way it is (a "divide and rule"-setup of the world).
That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power).
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
5
-
@psyberking Yup, protection rackets. When states do it, its (quote) "legit."
Same types of people though.
When "Luigi" goes to a restaurant, and tells the owner, "Hey, I gotta gooda deal fora ya. You gimme da money, and my boys'll protect ya from da bad hood your in...", you've got a plot for a Hollywood movie.
But, if Uncle Sam goes to Saudi Arabia, and says "I've got a good deal for you. We'll protect you from your neighbours, and all you have to do is sell your oil in dollars. There's a nice cut for you too..."
Then, you have "good guys" just "saving the world."
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The "divide and rule"-strategy or technique has a pretty long history in the Levant, which had been a desirable crossroads of civilizations ever since ancient times (land route connecting continents/systems) with changing POWERS implementing the strategy as time passed. If one wishes to understand history, one first has to familiarize oneself with strategies of power. If not, one WILL get misguided, distracted, and fooled into cheering for "imperialism", even whilst thinking one is cheering for "freedom and democracy", or something else. Note that in order to play the game of "divide and rule", it needs a geographical/physical advantage, and POWER.
No POWER, no games...
In a more worldly sense. As far as systems and strategies are concerned. The 15 million people initially injected as "anchor state" (strategy) into the Levant, by an empire after WW1, are not going to rule/dominate the Levant.
Such a small number is always a "tail", and not the "dog".
The tail (lesser power) does NOT wag the dog (greater power). That is just an easily chanted slogan, created by the dividers, in search of scapegoats for the slogan chanters/banner wavers. It is a myth and a tool of deception and misdirection, by those who truly wish to rule by division. The ruling class. The elites, or the "1%-ters", the "$uperhubs", or whatever one wishes to call such a headless mass, united by their interests (§§§footnote).
In the real world, it is the "dogs" of POWER, who "wag the tails".
Modern Israel is a tool, once created by an Empire for a specific purpose, just like every other ME country was created for a purpose.
The sooner ALL these divided Semites in the Levant realize this, the better it will be for ALL Semites. They are ALL tools.
As a guideline how the "divide and rule"-strategy can be defeated, the first tentative examples of African leaders finally realizing the POWER of the "divide and rule"-technique is out there. This technique, same as 100 and 200 and 2,000 years ago uses a multitude of "carrots and sticks": the outside POWER mis/uses differences in race, religion, ethnicity, and uses the appeals to the leaders here in the form of "greed", personal advantages, or promises, or using the "shame game", etc. Whatever works in the desired area in which "disunity" is the goal. The example of African leaders standing united, and repulsing such outside attempts, can be studied. The initial positive observation, is not final though: the "dividers" will return. They will come back, and push, and push, and push until the first weakness appears, which will then be exploited...
"Divide and rule" is in politics and international relations, what nukes are in warfare.
AGE OF EUROPEAN IMPERIALISM
Israel, the artificial entity, had never been created by a god, never mind what the idealogues proclaim. In antiquity it was created by strategists, employing amongst other strategies, the "divide and rule"-technique to inch forward towards the "milk and honey"-land belonging to others already living there, while being the favorites of a god in an ideology. Thousands of years later during WW1 it was recreated by a very worldly empire, Great Britain, employing the "divide and rule"-technique. The goals and aims of this empire, acting in conjunction with France, tacidly nodded of by Washington DC, were very earthly: to rule, and keep the POWER it had amassed as a result of a previous lucky GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE vis-a-vis its European neighbors. For the British Empire starting around 1917: to use mass-immigration as a tool of division as they did all over their empire. Lines were drawn, and rulers imposed onto the people living here, who were never asked as a collective. Whether it was the White Highlands (Kenya) or Palestine, these white immigrants brandished their newly found power (as the favorites of an empire). In other cases (Fiji, for example) mass-immigration of other subjects were used to cause disruption within the original indigenous power structures. This power of the hegemony was transformed into pieces of paper (deeds) granting CHOSEN FAVORITES property in a promised land, and these new favorites/best friends in the form of mass-immigration would then, in return, protect the British Empire's interests. In the Levant, it was the very precious Suez Canal from the threat of potential attacks by land armies, from the north...because the British Empire did as it always did. Create useful tools in a "barrier state" (strategy), for its own perceived potential future gain. That of the automatic ally (strategy). If the Levant was attacked by a northern empire on the way to Egypt/Suez as per Heartland Theory (1904), via land routes where the mighty Royal Navy was useless, the "poor little friends" which had previously been strategically set up as homelands/states, would be defended. Of course, because the Empire cared so much about "poor people"...
The motivations for empires in the beginnings at this watershed of history for the Levant (1917) can be linked to the motivations for empires today.
TODAY
Whatever the outcome in Israel/Gaza in our immediate future might be, the dividers in Washington DC have already achieved their aim. The last "gift" these dividers in Washington DC gave their favorites, was East Jerusalem (Trump admin), simply handed over without asking the people who actually lived here what they wanted for themselves. Eurasia is divided into multiple "teams", all arguing with each other and pointing fingers, playing the blame game, unable to unite into greater powers. Today: The sooner ALL these "divided" people realize this, the better it will be for ALL the people. War is a great divider. Such divisions last generations. "Divide and rule" extends into each and every mind. Line-drawing does not only take place on maps, but it also goes straight though your Limbic system (brain/appeal to emotion) and from there straight through entire societies.
THE DAWN OF MODERN CIVILIZATIONS
In the Bible, the original divider of mankind in the Levant, was the figure God (Old Testament).
Whether one believes in this god or not, doesn't matter. In a systemic analysis, Jesus the philosopher (New Testament) actually OPPOSED his (so-called) father's form of authoritarian and often brutal rule (Old Testament). In antiquity, the figure God had used the "divide and rule"-strategy on and over the rest of mankind in the Levant. From the position of ultimate POWER, God had chosen favorites, and throughout the Old Testament (as a historical series of events) continued to make rulings and grant miracles in the favor of his chosen. Yikes, God even nuked Sodom and Gomorrha in order to make living space for his chosen (lol, just kidding). On a sideline, also the invention of propaganda: These inhabitants were the collective "evil outgroup", who also collectively "deserved to die".
Whatever...
Further indicators: God favored "ruler types" (Old Testament/top down rule) like Moses. No doubt, in a realist analysis, strategists like Moses were most likely the inventor of the SINGLE HEGEMONY as a SOLE God with the all seeing eye, to create unity. To avoid people from creating a miriad of depictions and minor gods, and get constantly distracted by a plethora of personal favorite foreign gods in the lands they were dispered into, and who would end up dancing around idols...
Poor Moses must have been frustrated by his followers' insatiable appetite for entertainment, divisive squabbles, tribal infighting, family fueds, and other distractions from the endsieg: the land of milk and honey they all dreamed of as settler colonists on the move.
THE ROMAN EMPIRE
According to the legacy, Jesus approached commoners (New Testament/bottom up unity).
The polar opposite of God of the Old Testament (see above).
Around the year "0", The Roman Empire had the POWER in the Med, and it had amassed this power as a result of a previous lucky GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE vis-a-vis its neighbors in the Mediterranean. A technological and organisational edge gave it that slight advantage of reach: While it could "reach" all neighbors in the Med, these neighbors could not "reach" Rome, at least for the time being. That would change later as the balance of power shifted.
Around the year 0, one can consider Jesus as the "prototype Hippy" teaching love and charity, in other words the Monty Python take on the observed events, or one can see him as a talented strategist who intended to take on the might of the Roman Empire. Actual evidence then favors a combination of both (the "peaceful revolution" against the Roman Empire): crimes against the state, like sedition, were usually punished by crucifiction. The irony of the Roman Empire killing Jesus, is that they later took the resulting religion as a state religion, in efforts to bring unity to the crumbling empire, by replacing a miriad of gods and resorting to the "one god" as single hegemony over all (state religion). The intention to use an ideology to create unity was too little, too late to save a crumbling empire...
Whether such events mentioned on clay tablets, or scrolls, were actual events, or inventions by philosophers to explain strategies, or simply true at some core and then added onto as the ages passed, to become the well-honed stories we read today, is not even important in any systemic analysis. As I always say, historians and politicians can hardly agree on what happened last week, let alone 2,000 years ago, or 4,000 years ago.
Therefore, best to reduce everything to the tier of "systems/strategies" in order to discover what really happened.
THE END
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
Meanwhile, after more than two years Boris Johnson has admitted that the war in the Ukraine is a proxy war for US/collective Western interests, and Vladimir Zelensky has stated that "there are those in the West who don't mind a long war [in Ukraine]" to extend Russia, using his peoples as tools for the gain of outsiders who drool over the profits (Mitch McConnell), or lust after the systemic expansion possible as result of great upheavals amongst human beings. Does this take the wind out of the sails of the "paid Putin puppet"-screamers, blindly chanting their MSM narratives against those who have said this from day 1? Not at all. In order to fit their world views, these tools will deny reality, rattle down the narrative to a point of making total fools of themselves. They would now have to believe that Boris Johnson, or Vladimir Zelensky are "paid Putin puppets", in order to square a circle...
This is exactly what is meant with fools arguing their way into the trenches their own leaders have deceived them into.
The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into.
Eastern Europe.
Balkans.
Black Sea.
Caucasus region.
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control).
How old is this game called "marching empire"? Old, very old....
3
-
3
-
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).
3
-
3
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and then lose, is closer to what happened. The word "rule" also constitutes a "trigger", or natural aversion, which would mean psychologically oposing a theory, simply based on the words used.
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please, lol.
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
There is an entire palate of examples of "dividing Europe" on multiple levels, and gain an advantage (see below comments thread for a few). These multiple examples are not "anecdotal", or "cherry picked", but form a pattern in a political game (in geopolitics/grand strategy = avoid the unity of "others", because unity = strength).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump ("Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy).
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation, leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favoratism.
"Favor" one "empire" (in this case France and GB) above others...temporarily.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Some of the rare historical anomalies are Chamberlain (Munich 1938) or Boris Jonson (Finland/Sweden 2022) because try as one might, one cannot find any other strategic incentive for these missions, other than the noble cause and an effort keep the peace, in the face of previous total failure.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware
3
-
3
-
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, but a geopolitical strategy, and it has a long history.
It 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/Akron University)
- 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.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
THE FULL CIRCLE
Regarding any criticism today, about "Germany not doing more" to "stop Russia", for example the hesitation to deliver Leopard II MBT's against Russian objections, which could force Russia into a (own perspective): humiliating retreat from the Ukraine."
Why should they?
The "deceivers and manipulators" in the background had already schemed for it before, and Berlin had fallen into the trap of "doing more than the alpha" and "doing more than everybody else" before.
Why should they fall for it again and again?
Re. the long-standing habit Berlin had to "force Russia to withdraw in humiliation", by not strengthening the Russian position of more expansion for the benefit of Russia:
A prophecy by an old Russian general from the memiors of Wilhelm II: "It's that nasty congress of Berlin. A serious mistake by the Chancellor (edit: Bismarck the "honest broker" had stepped forward to avoid a war between Russia and Great britian, the alpha at the time). It has destroyed the old friendship between us, planted distrust in the hearts of Court and Government, and furnished a sense of grave wrong[Pg 17] done to the Russian army after its bloody campaign of 1877, for whom she wants her revenge. And here we are together with this accursed French Republic, full of hatred against you and filled with subversive ideas, which in the event of war with you, will cost us our dynasty."[1]
Re. "prophecies", how right he was.
Critical question re. the Ukraine today: Why should Germany step forward, and do more than the self-proclaimed alpha Washington DC, or any other state?
(Strategy: setting up the "fall guy", to "throw under the bus").
Conclusion:
Not for the first time in history, the actions of a German leader would result in Russia forced to "withdraw in humiliation": The first time had been Bismarck, whose "just honest broker"-intentions were misused by outside powers (British "saber rattling" and "war scare") to achieve exactly the same effect.
A rift between Russia and Germany.
Crises or wars...same effect.
Create an eternal rift between Russia and Germany...
War.
The Ukraine, 2022.
A great way to "make the megabucks" (see the Rand Report of 2019) while creating a rift between Germany (and other European states) and Russia...
The "keep Germany down and Russia out"-crowd had been at it before.
As early as 1878/1879 (San Stefano).
Lord Ismay was not stating a conclusion based on recent history when NATO was formed, stating the reason why NATO was necessary for defence, but was actually hinting at what had been a long-term London policy standpoint.
Keep Germany as "down" as possible, and Russia as "out" as possible, for ALL time...
That was the "recipe of success" of the ones who wanted to rule ze world.
Divide Europeans.
Create division.
Stick the dagger of dissent in the "heart" of the Heartland, and avoid any kind of unity.
The only thing that unfortunately changed for the scheming London lords orchestrating the setup, was the alpha...
Lord Ismay: "NATO's intention is to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out."
"To establish any mode to abolish war, however advantageous it might be to nations, would be to take from such government the most lucrative of its branches." - Thomas Paine
That was not only true when he stated it.
The revolving door between industry and government (or as Eisenhower said the Military Industrial Complex), will keep on sending...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
“Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.” — Henry Kissinger (attr.)
The beauty of "history", is that the "control freaks" of history tell you exactly what they aim to do. Whether Kissinger actually said this or not, is not important. What is important is that it is one of those age-old truisms known to the average history fan as the "siege" of towns and fortresses, as the "naval blockade" (military strategy) as technology improved, or in modern times the "political/economic sanctions", all with a host of variations as our world became more and more complex.
When these few have the MONEY, they CONTROL the resources, and that includes human beings all over the globe as potential PROXIES as "human resources".
Summary generated by ChatGPT from the video description of the UCLA video:
"The 1994 discussion between Henry Kissinger and Jack Matlock revolved around the contentious issue of NATO expansion and its implications for U.S.-Russia relations and Eastern Europe's stability. The debate was set against the backdrop of Russian opposition, articulated by President Boris Yeltsin, who warned that expanding NATO could lead to a "cold peace" and further isolate Russia. Kissinger supported NATO expansion as a necessary step to ensure the security and sovereignty of Central European countries like Poland and Hungary. He argued that delaying expansion could create a geopolitical vacuum, leaving these nations vulnerable to influence from both Germany and Russia. Kissinger viewed NATO as a stabilizing force and an "insurance policy" against future uncertainties, emphasizing that such moves need not antagonize Russia if managed through diplomatic and military assurances. Matlock, however, cautioned against hasty expansion, noting that Russia's current weakness did not pose an immediate military threat. He believed that NATO expansion might inflame nationalist sentiments within Russia, complicating its internal politics and its path toward democracy. Instead, he argued for prioritizing economic integration of Eastern European nations into the European Union and maintaining diplomacy to address Russian concerns. The conversation highlighted differing perspectives on balancing security, diplomacy, and the risks of escalating tensions in post-Cold War Europe."
Arguing "two sides of the same fence", which was systemic expansion into Eastern Europe, using Russia's weakness after the fall of the USSR.
The use of millions of people as tools to cause friction in Eastern Europe with NATO expansion in order to overpower a weakened Russia, was the set path in order to assure US "primacy" per strategy (Wolfowitz Doctrine, 1991). The smokescreen as cover was provided by the parallel running promises of comprehensive security agreements, OSCE, Partnership for Peace, et al...
The goal? Carve Russia up, and use the pieces left over to encircle on China, the next in line after Germany (Treaty of Versailles/WW2), and siphon off the riches for own gain.
Divide-and-rule/destroy/control simply moved further east.
Re. the strategies our leaders follow.
They have not changed much over time.
Age-old strategies to advance own interests, which do not exclude cheating their "friends" and Christian "brothers" in the Caucasus.
Taiwan, Georgia, and others, take note.
"Friendship" does not exist on the ladder to success, or to stay on top of the pyramid kicking down.
A tale as old as the Bible.
Esau and Jacob is of course a cautionary tale to beware of brothers who come to you with a GIFT which has morphed over time and now means "winning means everything". Note that in this biblical "tale" about eternal deceit and "cheating own brothers out of their inheritance", that the deceiver is the hero of the story.
Those who end up with the RICHES under your feet, are the heroes. The deceiver's name and slimy ways continue.
Esau the inheritor and his father's favourite, as a name has sorta died out...
Just remember, wherever you live, that you just a "dog" in a "manger" (Churchill), and that the RESOURCES intended to be passed onto you as natural inheritance, belong to the OUTSIDERS, in the OUTSIDERS heads, and according to the strategies of these OUTSIDERS. The "smooth talking good guy", the spiffy clean deceiver, scamming his own brother, whilst arguing like a woman creating division within unity and creating the BLACK LEGEND of his brother (the "bad guy"), is the "hero" of history. Very telling indeed.
"If you want the present to be different from the past, study the past." - Baruch Spinoza
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@9863-k2k What you consider as a priority, is not relevant in the "big games" power politicians play. What Washington DC wants, is people with different political concepts, which Washington DC can then steer against each other.
Washington DC does not care what you think, and I can prove it. When the "two peoples" in the Ukraine, as a "pro-West vs. pro-Russia" factions, desired a peaceful solution for the Ukraine after the year 2010 or so, Washington did not consider them "two people." Washington said: YOU, are all ONE.
Washington DC did not advocate for the creation of an autonomous region, or a seperate state for those who wished to be "pro-Russia." Suddenly, the border was THE only thing important, for Washington DC. People did not matter. LINES mattered. The political views of millions did not matter. Strategists saw the opportunity to set these two people up against each other, and that is what they did.
You think these people care about YOU?
These Washington DC players play with money (interests), their priorities matter, Taiwan is the casino, and YOU are the "chips."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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).
3
-
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
2
-
Asking the wrong questions on a limited scope and timeline will not reveal the divide-and-rule technique.
The empire set off on the "G-G Line" from Germany to Greece, during the First Cold War after declaring war ("cold" war/1947).
It advanced to the "B-B Line" from the Baltics to the Black Sea (see footnote) after the "peace" was declared to the plebs after the 1990s, and a bright new future pwomised to all the children of history, believers...
How long do you think it will take for the empire, wriggling and writhing about ("divide-and-rule"), hopping over here and there ("pivoting") before they reach the "A-A Line"?
The goals of the "dividers" who wield the power, is simply that their politics is the continuation of war by other means...
‐-----------
The "B-B Line".
When people start thinking in terms of dichotomies like winning/losing, left/right wing, us/them, right/wrong, unity/division, they are already all "losers."
Think in terms of a desirable outcome. If not, lose.
Outsiders fabricate the "crescent of crises" around your heartland.
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
If outsiders come from outside and start drawing lines on the map, through your homelands without asking the people who live there.
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite. They allow outsiders to play the cards FOR them.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS. Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down. Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Rome. London. Washington DC.
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The question posed to Asians (mainly Chinese and Indians/citizens within these borders) remains the same as during the era of imperialism 200 or 300 years ago.
The obfuscators and dividers will use the same techniques in reasoning as they use in politics: they will "hop around" on criteria, causing dissention in debates on the micro level (society), in the same way the power players "hop around" on entire countries/governments/capital cities/key politicians in geopolitics on the macro level...
The technique of "divide and rule"...
Hop over here, hop over there, whatever standpoint brings the own short-term advantage, because THE POWER has the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of not having to suffer consequences from it's own actions.
The question posed to all Asians remains.
Whether they can see that they are in the same positions they were in 200 and 300 years ago.
The dividers come with "promises" which they mostly don't intend keeping, or offer "treaties" (in which these dividers themselves hold the geographical advantage of distance), make all kinds of excuses why the dividers don't keep their promises, or why the dividers don't suffer the same percentage of harmfull effects in times of crisis/war as the "chosen ones", just like 200 or 300 years ago. These promises are very enticing to power players, and offer the prospect of glory and achievement to the side the promises are made to, just like 200 or 300 years ago...
Anthony Blinken making some Indians FEEL (§§§, see footnote) very proud with repeated offers of NATO membership, just like previous US admins made such promises to the Ukriane, which no doubt made many Ukrainians FEEL very proud, and then the dividers with the geographical advantage, subsequently citing all kinds of "difficulties" why such "pwomises" then cannot be effected in a short timespan.
Meanwhile, exposing the "Ukraine"/proxy to extreme danger as the feet were dragged and dragged and dragged...
Of course, in the game called divide and rule, it is not the fact THAT it is a ridiculous offer, in view of recent events in the Ukraine exposing the danger of such folly, but rather the fact THAT such an offer is repeated. The fact THAT the offer is on the table, already causes mistrust/dissention amongst ASIAN neighbors.
Of course, if India refuses, the divider (of Asia), Washington DC can simply go to China and "promise Taiwan" to Beijing (signed away) in return for a deal, to surround Russia. The potential for "divide and rule" rests on the side with the geographical advantage, as long as the targets for division do not unite, specifically with a comprehensive Asian security agreement.
The question to Asians remains the same.
What are they going to do to create a SINGLE HEGEMONY (alliance) in East Asia, in order to speak with a united voice, against the POWER of division.
BRICS is not enough.
Any other deal or treaty, or the SCO in the current setup, or even the "UN's" laws and the "rules based order" cannot stand up to the POWER of divide and rule.
It needs a comprehensive security agreement for all of those in the FRACTURE ZONE 4 (stretching from North Pole, via Japan, Taiwan, through Thailand, the Indian subcontinent, towards the Middle East).
If no comprehensive security agreement is achieved, mutually beneficial for all, then simply wait for 200/300 year history to return ("rhyme")...
Or are Indian leaders like... first they came for Russia, but I did not care because I was not Russian. Then they came for China, but I did not care because I was not Chinese, and even saw an advantage for myself (economy) if China got "carved up" and weakened...
Indian leaders: It'll be great, if WE can CONTROL the WATER flowing into China, from Tibet...such tempting "offers" and promises...
"Around 1900" repeating for Tibet.
Finally though, if everything is burning, divided, in quagmire of revolution and war, and Asia the "new Middle East" as unfolded after the 1882 British invasion, followed up closely by the "Sir Lawrence"-types as the dividers of Arabs". The modern day version of that being the "Anthony Blinkens" of the world, finger pointing, and harsh language between neighboring states, and a tumbling towards "quagmire"-status, then who will speak up for India when the dividers come for you?
DESIRABLE OUTCOME in any divide and rule system: The dividers will subsequently have the "upper hand/higher ground" (leverage) of POWER for all future negotiations with the resulting "statelets", just like the ME after World War 1.
The secret towards more Indian "power" lies in the continued "power" of its neighbors, not these neighbors' weakness.
§§§Footnote: The appeal to emotion
Setting up the emotions generated by billions of minds, to set these minds up against each other, just like 200 or 300 years ago...
2
-
2
-
The "Western moral superiority"-fans need to wake up to the reality that the good ol' days are coming to an end.
In 1945 when everybody else was "down" in power, and "exhausted" (reality), the USA could almost single-handedly employ the DIVIDE-AND-RULE STRATEGY over the rest of the planet to skim off the world's wealth at the expense of 95% of the planet, disguising the desirable hegemony as philanthropy and magnanimous benevolence.
As the so-called "Cold War" ended, around the year 1990, the USA as sole hegemon could have done their best, but they chose to do their worst (PNAC, and so on).
Because every watershed of history offers the opportunity for positive change.
What is done with the opportunity, exposes the system/s.
By the 1990s, "the rest" of the planet had arisen from those ashes of 500 years of exploitive colonialism, 30 years of worldwide US/European imperialist wars (1914-45), and more than 40 years of so-called "Cold War" (1947-90) filled with proxy bloodshed which kept everyone in Africa, South- and Central America, and in Asia "down" in power, and which affected every corner of the globe...except the USA and a few "new superior European favourites" (lol) which could act as financiers using their distance from the war zones they instigated.
During the 1990s a watershed appeared, and the opportunity was allowed to slip by, accompanied by a host of apologetics by the "pointing fingers in-crowd" wishing to keep others "down" or "out" of their systems of rule and control.
Now the good ol' days are over.
If you're not in the club of US/collective West "superiority" (sic.), just remember: The USA/collective West have never had any ulterior motives (lol, just kidding).
All they have ever wanted to ever do, was "save the world from the bad guys" (more lol).
It IS just like that, because the WEST says so themselves, then don't argue (super lol).
"In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population ...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
Obviously, simple math means that it left the rest of the world (around 94%) to somehow get along with the rest left over. To have considered that as even remotely fair, regardless of any other circumstances, speaks volumes. Today it is still roughly 30% in the hands of 12% of the global population, as the rest rises. Again, silence on this speaks volumes. How were in the past (Age of European Empires), and are the 1%-ters in the West and their international friends TODAY (global elites/globalists) going to ensure that this desirable and ADMITTED (quote) "inequality" and dollar hegemony continues?
THAT is the question they are trying to deflect from, with endless cycles of circular reasoning.
HOW TO HANG ON TO THE "GOOD OL' DAYS."
Answer: With the divide and rule technique of top-down power, in efforts to split the main BRICS nations, and bring down any other rising and stable region of power the planet which refusing to be vacuumed off like a giant hoover (corporatism), splitting it apart with a NEW COLD WAR, then blame everybody else.
The superior USA/collective West, where you have the freedom of speech to say what you want, and those who rule the world (haves with the money) have the freedom to fire you. Guess who has the true power?
Or, in other words, they have the money to hire you for a well-paid position ("carrot" of incentive) if you say what they like.
If you live in Africa, Asia, or anywhere else, don't rely on any "superior westerner" (sic.) or local collaborator to tell what I will inform you about: How their power works.
People who are confronted with uncomfortable truths, simply fall into the "let's not talk about that"-mode because they WANT to point their fingers somewhere else, which is a cognitive bias or fallacy in reasoning.
"When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie." - Yevgeny Yevtushenko.
When the truth of the new reality finally sets in they fall silent and do not speak, confusing "silence" with "strength".
Some say the most dangerous of all animals are the stupid. I say, it is the silent.
I am warning the peoples of Africa, and Asia, and South & Central America against my own so-called "leaders" and the people who follow these types.
Regardless of all the apologetics, the USA/collective West are still imperialist systems to the core, and it is exposed by the mainstream rhetoric: There has never been a war of systemic and ideological expansion these imperialist supporters did not like, revel in as "fighting bad guys", or ignore, or apologize for. Notice how their "Cold War" (name branding) was your "hot wars" (strategy of power). The mainstream did not care enough for REAL changes 200 or 100 years ago, and they did not care enough 50 years ago, and they did not care 25 years ago, as they do not care today either. Lindey's Law on full display. As long as the wars are far away, and they have their "cheap tanks of gas" and good life, do not expect them as collective to care (exceptions to the rule are of course highlighted by the MSM of the "liberal imperialist" system).
In fact, what a crowd of lessons do the present miseries of the world teach us. Never to have an hereditary leader of any sort; never to let a citizen ally himself with outsiders; never to call in foreign nations to settle domestic differences; never to suppose that any nation will expose itself to war for you for free. There is always a price tag.
They are beyond help, because their entire setup is dogmatic. "We" are "always right." Therefore, balance them out with own systems of power and unity.
When they come for you, fingers waging, send them home.
Be nice, but send them home, and solve your own problems peacefully as a commons.
Never fall for the rhetoric, because they will NEVER accept that their own constant eternal wars of DIVISION are evil, never mind how many die or end up as refugees, without shelter or in hunger.
Balance them out.
If not, you will suffer.
2
-
"The world is on the edge of nuclear catastrophe in no small part because of the failure of Western political leaders to be forthright about the causes of the escalating global conflicts. The relentless Western narrative that the West is noble while Russia and China are evil is simple-minded and extraordinarily dangerous. It is an attempt to manipulate public opinion, not to deal with very real and pressing diplomacy. The essential narrative of the West is built into US national security strategy. The core US idea is that China and Russia are implacable foes that are “attempting to erode American security and prosperity.” These countries are, according to the US, “determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence.” The irony is that since 1980 the US has been in at least 15 overseas wars of choice (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Panama, Serbia, Syria, and Yemen just to name a few), while China has been in none, and Russia only in one (Syria) beyond the former Soviet Union. The US has military bases in 85 countries, China in 3, and Russia in 1 (Syria) beyond the former Soviet Union." - Jeffrey Sachs, The West’s False Narrative about Russia and China (jeffsachs dot org)
2
-
Here is what they say as the carrot (honeypot): That there will be peace in the world, and that everybody can live in Western-style prosperity, as long as everybody becomes like us in the West.
Here is what they tell you: That these US/collective Western governments and privatized imperialist instruments of power "support the people" in "standing up to neighbors" or "resisting their governments."
Here is what they don't tell you. That these regions (which can be plotted on a map as "march route of empires") are not going to be the last such promises are made to.
The intention is to gain these regions as jumping off points for further own "Smedley-Butler"-style corporate expansion.
Once one region has been converted, it is time for the "next in line" a few years later.
They never explain, however, HOW the entire world is going to live a "western lifestyle" if the resources are the constant factor.
They will come with their deceptive "logic" and "reasoning" and their innocent "questions" but they never answer such blatant and obvious contradictions themselves.
For some inexplicable reason, these slime-balls and liars who deceive these naive people in faraway places, don't tell these people that there are not enough resources for the entire world to live "western lifestyles" and even IF they convert, there is NO intention to have these far-flung regions to EVER have a "western lifestyle," because even today it is a well-known fact that it needs the resources of 4 or 5 planets in order for every inhabitant of the planet to live like a Westerner. In other words, in order to fulfill their promises, every American and Westerner (around 12% of the entire global population) will then also have to share equally, and make do with 12% of the world's resources: NEVER. GOING. TO. HAPPEN.
How do we know this? Because it has not happened so far. That means it will also never happen in the future, and they are lying in order to deceive people.
The intention is to let these people bleed and die for the own corporate expansion, and then have the "Blackrocks" move in to gut the available gems of the local economies, and enslave the people into eternal Western led debt-slave taxpayer status for the benefit of these outside corporations and their local collaborators, accompanied by the "eternal finger pointers" and their finger-pointy "logic".
And they need YOU to voluntarily propagate/advocate for such a slimy deceitful loooooong-term plan.
TANNU TUVA: A GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
No doubt, few people have heard about Tannu Tuva...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvan_People%27s_Republic
...a small republic in Siberia, with a relative poor population, and with border disputes with Mongolia, a fair amout of valuable resources, and therefor ripe for a little NED "Maidan"-style secret ops to topple the local government.
The next Ukraine, in a looooooong list of "next Ukraines".
Belarus (White Russians), Georgia, Armenia, and many more, in a well-studied history: the playbook is always the same and this playbook is as transparent as glass. The fact that some of such regime change operations have failed, is irrelevant: they NEVER stop. They will keep on coming, until they reach they goals: bloodshed and death, for the own expansion.
Morph the system, and employ the people as tools to do the own bidding.
Move on, to the next in line.
There is ALWAYS a "next in line."
The map does not lie.
Most favorably, to employ the converted local populations to fight and die while "extending Russia" (actual language used in strategy papers).
Then destabilize Russia from within, one step at a time.
Carve it up into smaller pieces, and use these smaller pieces to encroach on, and encircle the REAL goal: China.
Rinse. Repeat.
The "game" started by London (British Empire) continues, eternally, since there are not enough resources to fulfill the promises made.
These people in these faraway places are doomed to remain in poverty, exploited by a few local favorite elites, who will be the FAVORITES of the far-flung "empires".
FAVORITISM = A divide a rule technique of power (imperialism), all well-hidden behind flowery declarations, hooded language, long words, and (sometimes well-meant I assume) promises.
See the long list of such morphed systems: "democratic" but still poor, because the far-flung empires CONTROL the access to resources (gatekeeping = a bully tactic to keep others "down") all over the world. These people remain in poverty, until the excesses of their foreign steered elites reach such proportions that the people revolt, or choose populist/military leaders, and then that is the excuse used to topple the government, or try to coerce neighboring states to carry out a regime change invasion.
Imperialism 101, gathering their cheering dumbed-down slogan-chanting fanboys and gamerboys, too dumb to realize what they are signing up for.
In case the converts fail, YOU are going to be the BLOOD and the IRON for the empire fanboys in the sinecure comfort of their faraway havens.
Strange how everybody in our current democracies always think only our current leaders are a bunch of deceivers and liars, but somehow the historical leaders were innocent little halo-bearing angels who only wanted peace and well-functioning democracy, because they said so, and its written in a book somewhere...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
US Congressperson Dan Crenshaw (note his military background, therefore knowledge about strategies) recently stated re. the concept of "rather letting them fight over there" (a reference to the strategy of "the proxy"), after a 40 billion aid package to the Ukraine: “Yeah, because investing in the destruction of our adversary’s military, without losing a single American troop, strikes me as a good idea. You should feel the same.” (in a "shame game" with Republicans via Twitter who voted against the aid package).
Yup.
A "great idea" (sic.) to "invest" in the blood of a 3rd party fighting in a war which would have been easy to avoid, and earn some "donations" along the way. What's there not to like?
One might think that this is "anecdotal", but as Napoleon said only the coward won't tell you what he thinks in your face. And there are a ton of cowards in the field of politics.
One might think whatever one wants about Dan Crenshaw, but at least he is honest.
If anybody ends up in a muddy trench, it's not his fault.
Of course, its never the fault of the "system" he's in called "world alpha" either, since it's a free world, and if you're stupid enough to end up in the "muddy trench" fighting so that men like him (or, his "buddies" in "the system") can rake in obscene profits in the rackets they will always vote against avoiding, it's not his issue.
He'll be in church on Sundays, praying the loudest, and he'll be on twitter on Monday, making fun of those not smart enough.
I assume, he'll have his "flock" of supporters, irrelevant of what he utters.
2
-
The idea that people have that their own countries are "fighting for the weak and powerless" is a misconception.
States and empires fight for their own benefit, and there is always a "price tag" for "help".
States and empires don't "fight to help weak countries/people".
In case there is a power imbalance: The grand strategy is called "the proxy".
The "big brother" is the benefactor.
The "little brother" is always in danger of becoming a proxy, involuntarily sacrificed for the gain of "the big brother".
Unless the "big brother" and the "little brother" are in the same boat by means of a binding treaty, there is no equality in outcome.
Unless the "brothers in arms" are exposed to the same or similar level of danger and are facing the same or similar potential ill-effects due to own actions/inactions, then it is an unequal relationship. Unless all parties suffer similar percentages of financial and human losses, and risk a similar percentage of destruction to their property and territory, then it is in effect "a proxy" which has been set up for the fall.
The ones losing most are always the "proxies" of course (historical analysis, with multiple examples).
In politics and big business, nobody does anything for free.
How one writes history is more a matter of framing: for example the widespread misconception of "good empires on the right side of history, fighting for the little guy" (aka "the poor people"-argument): notice just how...ahem..."coincidentally" these "poor people" just happen to live in regions of the planet with raw materials/strategic value. Empires are suspiciously very keen on "fighting for democracy/freedom" or "poor people" when these battles take place in areas of the planet benefitting own gain in some or other form, or if it is beneficial to the own rise in power.
In strategy, the so-called "fighting for the little guy/democracy/freedom" is nothing else than "creating a proxy" or "proxy wars" for own gain.
It's the same thing, simply using different words or "putting a spin" on words by changing the perspective, thereby making it more palatable and advantangeous to the own cause, which is own gain.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others like Aaron have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve change by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve change by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve change by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve change by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve change by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and lose is closer to what happened.
DIVIDE AND CONTROL
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please :-)
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels, and any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain, simply needed to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets. Once "divided", there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Some examples regarding the theory in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors would offer a foothold in Europe.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have such consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement after 1895, amongst other less "valuable" suitors, was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below). The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises made"...lol
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...lol.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below footnote explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics sterted with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947. It is alive and well. It has surrounded every aspect of power politics on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Same with the funding of opposing European leaders and states (for example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s).
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else, while "eating popcorn and chips"...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail.
The last time the USA gained big time, was after the USA had played its part in setting up Imperialist Europe for failure 100 years ago, starting around 1900 in small steps, using the divide and rule technique of power and from a position of unassailable geographical favor (the geographical reality can also be stated using other words, such as "competing from advantageous ground"/RAND Report, 2019).
How are American psycho leaders going to get Eurasian states/countries, incl. their own "friends" in the EU, and the rising East Asian part of BRICS, to go "down" again so the good times of "50% wealth for us" (post-WW2 strategy/McKennan), while attracting and raking in all the runaway talent from everywhere else as these regions are destroyed by crises and war (brain drain), and as these wars are funded by the post-1913 fiat currency dollar hegemony? (see footnote)
How can US leadership avoid having to deal with the OWN divided and ruled over population when they can no longer be pacified by throwing heaps of luxury into their laps, getting successively disgruntled as the amount of afforded wealth is decreasing yearly, and ever-more divided more and more unevenly within the own system (1% owning 50% of wealth in the USA) while everybody else on the planets is "exhausted" and "extended," all the while pretending to be friends? Note that the current rising anger within the USA is no longer ground on moral inequalities, such as the large uprisings in the 1960s, and 1970s. The current anger on the the streets, is overwhelming carried by a massive inequality within the OWN country, with the mega-rich encroaching on the own small amounts of acquired wealth in ever more outrageous and openly advocated and politically backed corporate steps...
Obviously, unlike the post-WW2 "good ol' days" there is not enough to pass around anymore, as others rise and start demanding a fair share of the world?s resources, on ALL front lines.
WHAT. ARE. THEY. GOING. TO. DO?
Oh, never mind: They are already doing it. Divide and rule technique of power, same as ever since they existed.
footnote
Money is simply a tender, which is used to allocate the resources of the planet, which are limited. "Control" the money = "control" the resources. It doesn't need a ton of books to explain what money is. Money is simply a tender, which is used to allocate the resources of the planet, which are limited. "Control" the money/currency = "control" the resources. There. Did it in twenty seconds 😂
"If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu," February 17th 2024, US Secretary of State Blinken. If you don't got the money honey, YOU are going to be eaten, if YOU don't unite with your neighbors. That is the system YOU cheer for as "best that can be done."
Money is a vehicle to allocate resources. It's the physical resources which are limited, and who controls the flow of printable money, controls the flow of resources.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Fact is that Trump, or any other previous admin, did not stop this "(systemic) slow march".
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemony.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quiet or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
Just claim hero status for the self, and blame everybody else for everything which goes wrong.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else?
Already predicted. Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
2
-
2
-
2
-
Just like the 1930s "divider in chief", the UK, was no longer as immune from "weapons of long range destruction" (bombers) as it was around the year 1900 while big guns still ruled the world and there were no large fleets of bombers, the USA today as "divider in chief" is no longer as immune from "weapons of long range destruction" as it was around the year 1945.
It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s anymore.
HISTORY RHYMING
Today. there are nukes.
By golly, who would've guessed...
Regardless of what some "experts" proclaim, the logic of the "bomber will always get through" of the 1930s, is repeated today, and these various types of nukes will always get through in sufficient amounts to wipe any power off the map. Even if it survives as state or country, it will no longer be a world power. All it needs is sufficient numbers of MIRVs in order to sacrifice some (incl. duds to attract/distract/overwhelm the air defense), so that the mass of the rest will reach their intended targets. So the "experts" tell you their Patriots will stop them. These Patriots and other missiles and air defense systems can be overcome by implementing a very simple programmable and un-jammable multiple-layered attack, as first-strike, and the first incoming Russian nukes, stationed just 15 minutes flight-time away, will act as multiple air-burst to wipe out any attempt to intercept them in the radius of 100 miles, and the following strikes in their wake a few seconds later will mostly get through.
Keep on poking the bear.
Get the Ukraine to try and blind the Russian early-warning radar systems.
Keep on "poking by proxy" and YOU will find out, because you are ruled over by idiots.
Keep on poking, and find out that you've always been ruled by chest-thumping slime-balls and psychopaths: not all of them, but enough to implement age-old strategies of power, intended to gain as others lose. Just don't for a minute think, the default "other side" doesn't know what you are up to...
Then, it doesn't matter anymore how one chest-thumps around about how "superior" or "always right" one is.
It doesn't matter anymore if you live in the EU or Northern Europe, going "but, but, I'm sooooo innocent."
It doesn't matter if you chant "trust our leaders, cos they know better cos cos we democracies..."
It doesn't matter anymore about how the few survivors brag about "how man wussians they also got".
Then it doesn't matter anymore, because your leaders will no longer be in a position to implement wrongs per "new Versailles" (currently planned in Switzerland for mid-June) and get away with it. Of course, they are going to insist on only negotiating with the true representatives of the peoples of Russia, who truly desire peace just like our own superior Western leaders who have only always wanted peace, cos they said so, and since that turned out soooooo great last time around (WW1).
The conference is of course a total waste of taxpayer money, just like Versailles was 100 years ago (1919).
Before Moscow gets into that position of becoming "carved up and used" as a tool to encroach on China, it will wipe YOU off the map FIRST.
You (systemically) no longer have a geographical position of power.
In this scenario, qui bono to make the best of the subsequent nuclear winter?
That will be what happens if there are true fools pouting their "last man standing" logic as "fair enough", but cannot apply the logic and reasoning behind it even if their own lives depended on it.
Guess who will live longest in the "nuclear winter"-scenario? (theory)_
Short answer: NOT you.
Longer answer: The same class of people who never ended up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world, apologized for and sanctioned by the "biggest loser class in history, who don't know, or don't care, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names", same as 20 years ago, 50 years ago... 100 years ago, 200 years ago...
2
-
2
-
Today, the Ukraine is becoming "the new Vietnam".
Stages of the Vietnam War:
1950 to 1964: drawn in (aka...ahem..."advisory")
1965 to 1968: combat (aka "buckets of blood")
1969 to 1975: localizing (aka "Vietnamization"), or the "let's gtfo of here"-stage...
China and the UdSSR were of course in the background, knowing full-well that the USA could not escalate a limited war into a total war, by using nuclear weapons to win. For Beijing and Moscow, the desired effect/outcome was hoped: "(financially) bleed the USA to death" using "buckets of blood" of a 3rd party.
"Vietnamization was a policy of the Richard Nixon administration to end U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War through a program to 'expand, equip, and train South Vietnamese forces and assign to them an ever-increasing combat role, at the same time steadily reducing the number of U.S. combat troops' ..." (wiki)
Of course, previously the opposite of Vietnamization had happened: that of "becoming dragged into" wars fought elsewhere (see below comments thread).
Such an effect of "getting dragged into wars" were either the effect of own meddling, or completely through no own fault or intrusive/unwarrented interverence. The latter is however hardly ever the case. Most wars are the effect of some or other form of meddling in the affairs of others, often disguised or covered up.
"Vietnamization" of wars is nothing else than the rhetoric which US Representative Dan Crensaw stated right out in the open (not verbatim, but close enough): "what is wrong with letting their soldiers die, to save our soldiers"...
It's the age-old strategy of "letting others fight".
The attitude problem in Europe in 1914 which had already lead to WW1.
History repeating.
Wait for it...
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces/wealth when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
>>>
The people of Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
>>>
The people of the Americas, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easy to divide people into "ingroups". In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the USA's power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS. Eden was a status quo divided by lies and deceit. Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the two Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly are two cheeks of the same gold-plated hind which sets out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, is the mirror of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
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." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion.
The Albion 2.0 took over...
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/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. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets and becomes successful it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances.
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and 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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Crises and wars is what one gets if one wants to rip/deceive a "sphere of influence" out of the hands of a rival.
WW1 came about because Imperialist Russia wanted to "rip/deceive a sphere of influence out of the hands of" Austria-Hungary.
It "started" with a slug-out between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, and "ended" in WW1.
WW2 came about because of Hitler/Nazi Germany and Stalin/the SU wanting to "rip/deceive a sphere of influence out of the hands of" the West/empires (GB/France)".
It "started" with a slug-out between Germany and Poland, and "ended" in WW2.
The War in the Ukraine came about because the USA/West/NATO wanted to "rip/deceive a sphere of influence" out of the hands of Russia.
It "started" with a slug-out between the Ukraine and pro-Russian seperatists proxies (fueled by the USA/West/NATO), and will end in a "2nd Cold War" (hopefully "only" a "cold war").
An eternal game...
Friends one day, enemies the next, friends one day, enemies the next, friends one day, enemies the next...
Why bother trying to read "25,000 books" (Christopher Clark) only about a specific topic, say WW1?
Why philosophize endlessly about whether it is "one left arm" or "only one ball" which "starts wars", if one can simply point at "greed" or the desire to "rule" over others?
Irrelevant of the context and time (truisms). Leaders "defending the indefensible" will always be around.
"Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible – there will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain." - 06/09/2022 Rep. Elizabeth Cheney (R) Wyoming
They were there 100 years ago, and they were there 20 years ago when war could have been avoided by simply being honorable and stopping the ongoing process of "sphere of influence" stealing, using every trick in the book to disguise their actions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and then lose, is closer to what happened. The word "rule" also constitutes a "trigger", or natural aversion, which would mean psychologically oposing a theory, simply based on the words used.
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please, lol.
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
There is an entire palate of examples of "dividing Europe" on multiple levels, and gain an advantage (see below comments thread for a few). These multiple examples are not "anecdotal", or "cherry picked", but form a pattern in a political game (in geopolitics/grand strategy = avoid the unity of "others", because unity = strength).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump ("Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy).
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation, leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favoratism.
"Favor" one "empire" (in this case France and GB) above others...temporarily.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Some of the rare historical anomalies are Chamberlain (Munich 1938) or Boris Jonson (Finland/Sweden 2022) because try as one might, one cannot find any other strategic incentive for these missions, other than the noble cause and an effort keep the peace, in the face of previous total failure.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Around 1900:
There was an informal alliance of "English speaking races" taking shape, which was busy "informally nodding off" each others' conquests.
The logical conclusion with regards to that should have been that according to age-old rules, the answer would have needed to be to create an alliance of "non-English speaking...ahem...'races'..." (to quote the advocates of "English speaking races" ruling the world").
Logic/reasoning: "Balance of Power"-strategy, which is neutral and unbiased.
The fools were elsewhere.
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: Edward in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.'
An ancillary detail, which seems to have gone under in the clutter.
"Civilizing factor" of course, nothing else but the hooded language of these "few" to kill a few people every now and then, in order to gain themselves, while convincing millions that they were the 'good cops'...
A few key London leaders thought they could use their geographical advantage to divide the continent, and thereby always be in a position "to rule" during crises and wars. In the end they became overpowered themselves: In the reality of strategy, the Truman Doctrine was the de facto "division" of Europe by Washington DC. Note that in geography and in geopolitics "Europe" includes GB and Russia. Germany could be "kept down", and the old friend and ally Russia was kept out as a matter of doctrine.
"Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with (feelings). As Huxley remarked ... the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny 'failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.'..." Neil Postman.
Huxley is less well-known, but far more correct.
The information, sufficient to understand "what happened" (in history), and "what is happening today" (news/headlines) is out there. But "what happens/is happening" is drowned out by a cacophony of irrelevant information, leading the overwhelming majority of people to simply "switch of"...simply repeating "narratives" in order to fit in with their surroundings.
Majorities ending up thinking their own "narratives" are the only correct ones.
Mission accomplished.
That is what strategists aim to achieve.
"Divide and rule/conquer."
Europe has been "divided" and "ruled" over for more than a hundred years.
Huxley points out how being confronted with millions of ancillary details, to confuse and divide cause most people to simply switch off...
Today, the problem is not that there is too little information which is "controlled by a few 1%-ters" (Orwell).
The issue is there is too much clutter (Huxley).
Huxley correctly points out that leaders don't really have to hide/burn much with "Operation Legacy"-style deceit, one just has to make it too boring or complicated to read for the overwhelming majority of citizens of a country. That makes the deceit right out there in our faces.
Those so convinced pay the taxes to bankroll the "cops", while the profits have always been raked in elsewhere.
Of course (reality) "military industrial complexes" have existed ever since the first blacksmith realized he could earn more by selling swords to a rich king, rather than to sell ploughs to poor farmers...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The world is on the edge of nuclear catastrophe in no small part because of the failure of Western political leaders to be forthright about the causes of the escalating global conflicts. The relentless Western narrative that the West is noble while Russia and China are evil is simple-minded and extraordinarily dangerous. It is an attempt to manipulate public opinion, not to deal with very real and pressing diplomacy. The essential narrative of the West is built into US national security strategy. The core US idea is that China and Russia are implacable foes that are “attempting to erode American security and prosperity.” These countries are, according to the US, “determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence.” The irony is that since 1980 the US has been in at least 15 overseas wars of choice (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Panama, Serbia, Syria, and Yemen just to name a few), while China has been in none, and Russia only in one (Syria) beyond the former Soviet Union. The US has military bases in 85 countries, China in 3, and Russia in 1 (Syria) beyond the former Soviet Union." - Jeffrey Sachs, The West’s False Narrative about Russia and China (jeffsachs dot org)
Who is pushing, and pushing, until something snaps?
James Madison: "Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few..."
Eisenhower much later warned about the Military Industrial Complex: he simply made a statement about a system already in place, and which would not get unseated from power and positions of influence never mind what the common American wants or desires (political, lobbyists, "think tanks", and other interest groups).
Mark Twain — "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
US Congressperson Dan Crenshaw (note his military background, therefore knowledge about strategies) recently stated re. the concept of "rather letting them fight over there" (a reference to the strategy of "the proxy"), after a 40 billion aid package to the Ukraine: “Yeah, because investing in the destruction of our adversary’s military, without losing a single American troop, strikes me as a good idea. You should feel the same.” (in a "shame game" with Republicans via Twitter who voted against the aid package).
Yup.
A "great idea" (sic.) to "invest" in the blood of a 3rd party fighting in a war which would have been easy to avoid, and earn some "donations" along the way. What's there not to like?
One might think that this is "anecdotal", but as Napoleon said only the coward won't tell you what he thinks in your face. And there are a ton of cowards in the field of politics.
One might think whatever one wants about Dan Crenshaw, but at least he is open about his disgusting nature.
If anybody ends up in a muddy trench, according to himself, it's not his fault.
Of course, its never the fault of the "system" he's in called "world alpha" either, since it's a free world, and if you're stupid enough to end up in the "muddy trench" fighting so that men like him (or, his "buddies" in "the system") can rake in obscene profits in the rackets they will always vote against avoiding, it's not his issue.
He'll be in church on Sundays, praying the loudest, and he'll be on twitter on Monday, making fun of those not smart enough.
I assume, he'll have his "flock" of supporters, irrelevant of what he utters.
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
During the Fist Cold War (1945-1991) the off-continental powers stepped onto the "G-G Line" (Germany to Greece), and had little minions man the parapets of the wall.
During the Second Cold War (1990s-today) the off-continental powers stepped onto the "B-B Line" (Baltics to Black Sea), and are going to set up little minions to man the parapets of the wall. Ratchet principle, since 1776...
This is divide-and-rule/conquer.
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players.
Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
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." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
The reason I always recommend these books first is because it points to how divide-and-rule is implemented, even though it is never mentioned. Anybody who knows how divide-and-rule is implemented, can read any book and then recognize the tell-tale details revealing the strategy. This is divide-and-rule, a long-term strategy of power which is revealed by the events, not the words used by analysts who are all biased to an extent. The overall strategy is divide-and-rule, and one can implement it with a few key advantages, mainly:
1) the distance from the evolving events
2) the POWER (economic, political, military, financial) to afford advantages to own instruments of power
3) the time to wait, without compunction, granted by the luxury of 1) "distance," to await how events one has contributed to, unfold.
We in search of unity, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature.
The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector).
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can deny that it exists, because just like gravity, it cannot be seen.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like gravity, one can ignore that it exists, yet benefit from it at the same time.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like gravity exposes its own existence, by simple observation, anyone can observe the existence of divide and rule...
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like giant vacuum cleaners, it creates multiple systems on multiple levels, each with its own benefactors, and sucks of the hard labor from a base, and funnels it to the top.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that 99% of the participants who are involved, are blissfully unaware how they are actors in a game and can claim innocence while defending the systems at the same time.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can mask it behind innocuous policies, like meritocracy, and still claim to be doing the best politics possible.
The same way one can plausibly explain how one is a state of isolationism, yet be peculiarly in a state of constant interventionalism and war at the same time: invisible magic...***
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can plausibly deny its existance, yet constantly profit from it.
The cool thing about divide and rule, is that at the very top, the systems of empire, it creates a giant vacuum cleaner that funnels power to the top. "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 – 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. . ."
The fruits of hard consistent invisible labor.
Divide and rule.
"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." Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire. - Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
The fruits of hard consistent unseen effects.
Divide and rule.
***With regards to Interventionalism: the USA was supposed to be Isolationist: John Quincy Adams delivered a speech in 1821 stating the USA's founding foreign policy of non-intervention and the US government's premise not to get entangled in or meddle in the affairs of another state. Adams issued the dire warning: Should America ever abandon her founding principle of non-interventionism, she would become "the dictatress of the world."
Just like Eisenhower issued a dire warning about Military Industrial Complexes, everybody knows how effective such warnings are.
The two-tier approach: get some people to say one thing, while others do the opposite...
Divide and rule.
1
-
How "divide and rule/conquer" is revealed by events, not by digging around in archives.
Wiki: "The Paris Economy Pact was an international economic agreement reached at the Paris Economic Conference, held from 14 June 1916 in Paris. The meeting, held at the height of World War I, included representatives of the Allied Powers: Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and Russia." After a "won war" (perspective of 1916), these powers plus their dominions, colonies, and the potential "liberated assets" of the defeated nations after the "won war"-scenario (German colonies, German naval vessels, markets and concessions,etc.), formed a ring of powerful European survivors (plus one upcoming power in Asia) almost encircling the USA (geopolitics).
After the USA joined the war in full force, Russia was soon out of this potential "alliance of the winners" after the November Revolution in 1917, without much outside input.
One down, 4 to go.
Next out was Italy, by sending her liberals running back home crying (Wilson sowing dissent between the "winners" from the inside, a means used in "divide and rule". In this case, by "ruling" that her favorite's secret deals counted more that the secret deals made with Italy)
Two down, 3 to go...
After GB was persuaded to "dump Japan" by replacing a binding defence alliance with a wishy-washy non-binding "4 power treaty" (more detail in the thread below)...
Three down, 2 left..."
All that was left was the "cordial" non-binding "Entente of 1904 (GB/France).
These two "no obligations, just friends" (GB/France), just happened to be "US favorites" too. More "no obligations, just friends" (favoratism, another means used in "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies).
Europe was divided again.
Just like 1914.
Wilson at Versailles is often hailed as the idealistic neutral who wanted to save Europe...
Reality?
He was there as a forerunner of the American Century.
He came, he saw, and [divided and] conquered.
Vini, vidi, vici in slow motion.
Then he left again.
The USA didn't sign anything.
The USA didn't join any "leagues" of nations.
The USA didn't tie its hands with any rules.
There were no obligations, except the "rules" written by an expansionist Washington DC in the background ("think tanks" and other centers of strategic research).
A few years later, at the Washington Conference, her navy was "on par" with GB/Empire.
From an obscure colony on the fringes to a "5-5-3-2-2" (GB/USA/Japan/France/Italy) division of naval power in a 150 years.
Wilson: "Look at them jojos...that's the way you do it, get your empire for nothing and division for free..." ;-)
He was no different to most previous US Presidents, who put the USA first.
And the "USA first" was best achieved by keeping those plucky Europeans divided.
Watch "THIS is how to do it when things look hopeless! 💪🏻" on YouTube (Dave Wattle's win over 800m at the Olympics in 1972).
This is actual strategy explained on a small scale (sport event) which can be applied to all situatons of hierarchy and potential gain, incl. the "states/empires"-level of events.
The "no obligations, just friends"-side "hangs back" and strikes at an opportune moment when everybody else least expects it, are distracted, or simply tired (incl. "overburdened by debt" in the big picture of states/empires).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Today of course we are being told, that Turkey has been blocking Finnland's NATO entry bid because "of Kurdish terrorists"...
Of course we don't know what is really discussed behind closed doors and we might have to wait 20-30 years to discover "what really happened" (20/30 Year Rules with regards to freedom of information). In the meantime, we must simply believe our leaders and our news pundits, who simply point at current events, because they know the answers to everything...
Reality?
The current "NATO dilemma" is the end effect of entirely avoidable "chains of events" aka "causality": the result of an entirely avoidable series of escalation "starting" around the year 2000.
Today the "evil Turkey blocking poor little Finnland from joining NATO", is accompanied by the finger pointing "evil dictators"-narratives, as a nation subsides into more and more economic woes, and turns to "dear leaders" as they weaken and suffer more and more personal negative effects.
Does that sound even vaguely familiar?
Any historical parallels?
Re. "blocking NATO expansion".
Just like there are "art fans" who hoard stolen treasures in secrets caverns only they know of, just for the kick of it, I'm sure Erdogan has his own "secret cavern" in which he hoards his own personal revenge.
The "price tag" will be high.
Very high, and it is determined by previous actions.
That's how the world works.
Too bad Europe kept the "carrot" of EU-membership always just that tiny little bit outside of the reach of the mouth of Turkey (around the year 2000, "carrot and stick"-strategy), until not only the modern western pro-EU Turkish population living here lost all hope, but the time also came when liberal and progressive Turkish politicians and media also lost all domestic support.
A long-held dream of finally (after many years of political reforms) achieving the status of "Europeans", within arms reach.
Alas, never achieving the goal.
"Close enough" to being Europeans, was just never "good enough".
Always "just do a bit more" year after year after year, until all hope was finally eclipsed by more conservative wings in Turkish politics and society in an effect called "backlash", also known as "blowback" (politics).
The "never my fault"-Europeans making the same mistake all over again.
Turkey was of course safe in a military sense (NATO), but what was lacking was the prospect of economic growth, and access to an enormous common market (EU) of course offered the prospect of domestic growth (vice-versa, simplified trade and more markets for European goods offered by some 80 million people).
The end effect is that today, outside powers (mainly Russia and the USA) were provided with a healthy foundation of discontent to build their future strategies upon, and Europe loses again and again and again...
Google: "the USA and the weaponisation of global finance/Turkey" or similar key words.
A modus operandi.
The "weapon of choice" of a country/state in a superior geographical location, and with a superior financial and economic base.
(unfortunately, the website doesn't allow for quoting selected passages from the article).
Turkey is just another "color revolution" in the making, in a long string of previous "color revolutions" sowing death and destruction in their wake wheever they went. Rivers of blood, rather than the revered and praised "democracy seeds" (George Bush) blossoming a brighter future...
Note how the "seeds of democracy", sown by such organisations as the NED, are rarely followed by much in the form of effective "watering/nurturing" of the resulting "plants". From that, one can conclude that "successful democracies" are not always the desired effect of own meddling in the affairs of little nations, but rather part of a grander strategy. The location of the countries in which meddling takes place, is far more important than the fact that meddling takes place.
Anyway.
Did anybody seriously think Ankara doesn't know what Washington DC has been up to these last couple of years?
And to all the "throw Turkey out of NATO"-advocates.
That would be exactly what Putin would want: after some three centuries of trying to get unhindered access to the Med for the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Putin could then potentially score a victory where 300 years of Russian leaders have failed.
Ankara permitting, he could fill in the resulting "gap", with own steps and offers.
"Dissed Turkey" can then sell a potential alliance offer for a good price: cheap Russian oil (because nobody else wants it), cheap grains, and other cheap raw materials.
Maybe even a completely reorganized financial basis, before the "unfortunate anger of the streets" sets in with a colorful revolution as currently desired by the "alpha"...
1
-
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses smaller nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
Ever since "drunk Yelsin" telling off Clinton during the 1990s, the USA was warned about the dire effects own actions would have.
Putin (1999) replacing Yeltsin is an effect not a "cause".
First NATO expansion: 1999
Putin "emplaced": December 1999
Cause.
Effect.
Simple.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Getting into a crisis or war is very simple.
In liberal democracies, it works quite simply.
Take up a position one would never concede to as "acceptable" for oneself if placed in such a position. Then refuse a decent compromise.
Repell even moderate requests from "the other side".
If a crisis ensues or a war breaks out?
Wash hands in innocence.
Point the finger somewhere else.
Decry everybody on the own side who opposes the "narrative", usually by way of unprovable but populist accusations.
How to get a crisis to escalate into war?
Also easy.
Appeal to people's emotions.
From Goodreads quotes: “Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” ― Hermann Goering
Of course he knew how Berlin had fabricated consent for the invasion of Poland. The slogan chanters would point fingers and chant on command: "Poland attacked first", and "We are just going to save poor oppressed Germans" (as "shown on newsreels"), or "GB and France prodded Poland on to attack us" (sic.).
Goering didn't get much right in his political life, but even a broken clock is right twice a day: In this case, his statement is spot on.
1
-
Using Japan at the turn of the previous century as an example we can explain how powers with a superior geographical position, and in a better financial position, and with a more advanced industrial/technological stand, can "build up" proxies and then encourange them to do the own bidding.
Ukraine, take note.
London intended to use Japan as a "counterweight" to balance out rising Russian power as had become evident in the Great Game (19th Century rivalry over Asia).
After consolodating their hold over North and South America at the turn of the previous century ("around 1900"), Washington DC intended to expand into the Asia/Pacific region.
“Considering the basic interests of the U.S. at this stage of its development, there can scarcely be any doubt about the enormous importance of the Pacific (region)... If the contention that the center of world trade is slowly but surely shifting from the Atlantic to the Pacific is correct, (note at the time: China was still one of the world's leading economic powers in terms of GDP, independent of the fact that a succession of weak and corrupted Chinese governments offered the opportunity of European divide and conquer"-games with the Chinese people) then the notion that the commercial interests of the U.S. in the Far East have been growing in recent years with extraordinary speed, especially since the Panama Canal opened, is no less correct. In 1913, i.e. before the world war began, all the Asian trade of the U.S. did not exceed 125 million doll., whereas in 1920 it already surpassed 500 mil., and in 1928 it reached the enormous figure of 2 billion, in other words, in 15 years it increased by a factor of 15. .... As is well known, during the period preceding the Russo-Japanese War (of 1904/05), the States took a position that definitely favored Japan moving against Russia, and during that war America’s banking circles (Jacob Schiff, Kuhn and Loeb,and others) generously funded Japan. ... Great Powers were also working for the States to cooperate on Japan’s side. Under the influence of these factors, by the time the Russo-Japanese War began Britain found itself an ally of Japan and the U.S. its banker. The results of the war of 1904-05, however, surpassed all expectations of those who had prodded Japan into what seemed to be a risky adventure for it: the successes of the Land of the Rising Sun and its emergent arrogance forced Japan’s friends and accomplices to stop and think; it was becoming clear that these successes p. 217 p. 218 p. 219 p. 220 were threatening their own interests in the Far East, and therefore attempts began to hold back the further spread of Japan’s influence on the mainland. However, this already proved to be difficult…”
Morandum dated 11.5.1932. The United States: the Japanese-Chinese conflict and the question of a Soviet-Japanese clash.
This was an assessment by Soviet strategists while analysising US's turn of the century goals and aims (around 1900), largely corroborated by a multitude of modern post-WW2 works, and backed up by evidence.
It seems as if the own Washington DC and British Empire "chosen tool to oppose Russian expansion" called Japan, was getting too greedy and had to be stopped...
Note: While all of the above was taking place, the British Empire graciously built up Japanese military power both in terms of training and technology transfers, knowing full-well that Japan was already a contender for Chinese territory and markets (Formosa/1895).
An age old strategy, old as the mountains...
Use a "tool".
Build up "a proxy".
Watch on as others fight and/or weaken your rival/enemy, and make a killing on the sales of weapons and equipment.
From wiki/36 Strategems: "Kill with a borrowed knife (借刀殺人, Jiè dāo shā rén). Attack using the strength of another when in a situation where using one's own strength is not favourable. For example, trick an ally into attacking them or use the enemy's own strength against them. The idea is to cause damage to the enemy via a third party."
This can be a stand-alone strategy, or used in combination with other strategies...
Regarding strategies, the sky is the limit.
For example:
"Watch the fires burning across the river (隔岸觀火, Gé àn guān huǒ). Delay entering the field of battle until all other parties become exhausted by fighting amongst each other. Go in at full strength and finish them off." (same wiki site)
The modern insider joke of "sitting on the fence while eating popcorn and chips as others fight" in order to gain some advantage, is of course also an old trick.
Of course, Japan and Russia fighting "to mutual exhaustion" and thereby removing two contestants for profitable Chinese markets at the same time, and ending up feeling "totally down and demoralized" after a brutal war, didn't quite work out according to the strategy.
Not for the first time in history, the "mutual exhaustion"-part didn't play out, and Japan came out of the war stronger than most international analysts had expected.
1
-
1
-
1
-
ASIANS BEWARE:
Robert Blackwell (2015 quote from an article): "...since its founding the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals first on the North American continent then in the Western Hemisphere and finally globally..."
Asians beware: The ex-Imperialists powers' of the "oh-so-superior West" are using divide and rule strategies over Asian nations, trying to set your nations up against each other so these outside systems can "surf in and skim off the profits of division". It is as alive and well as during the Age of Imperialism, and they are using exactly the same techniques of "dividing Asians" as they used 200 and 300 years ago.
WARN EACH OTHER REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN EMOTIONS OR PERSONAL PRIORITIES
Most European people are far too daft or preoccupied to understand how their own leaders scheme and deceive them too, so do not expect any help from westerners. Most are so obsessed with their own so-called "superiority", that they end up thinking everything they do is justified, with "only a few exceptions" in order to seem fair...
Has your nation, or a leader already been "chosen as a favorite son of the West"?
Then you have already subscribed to the divide and rule scheme, of outside powers...
Set whatever differences you might have with neighbors aside, or settle them fast peacefully, and don't think you can personally gain from co-operating in such a "divide and rule/conquer"-scheme. Actively set out to start warning ALL Asian peoples across all borders.
Don't expect anybody in the so-called "superior West" to warn you.
YOU personally have the POWER, via social media, to spread this message.
Do YOU have an account? Then start spreading this message.
Just do it, before it is too late.
You must REALIZE yourself, and actively become engaged in your own defence, and this is regardless of where you live in Asia.
YOUR own defence, is across the often artificial borders these Imperialists imposed on Asia, hundreds of years ago, and your emotions are still a "slave" of decisions made by these Western "overlords" hundreds of years ago.
Divide and rule will sacrifice YOU today, for the gain of the outside Western Powers, just like divide and rule sacrificed your grandparents and previous Asian generations during the Era of Imperialism...
------------------------
P.S.: I cannot personally post this message myself too often, since YT autoblocks it as "spam" if I copy and paste it under videos too often. I need YOUR help. In your own interest of safety, please spread this message with regards to the age-old "divide and rule"-strategy of outside (non-Asian) powers. Thank You.
1
-
It will be "history repeating". Please search for the McCollum Memorandum, about how Washington DC intended to goad Japan into "shooting first", so the US would have a suitable excuse to "just shoot back." The McCollum Memorandum, 1940, was a strategy paper written a full year before Pearl Harbor.
Pearl Harbor was part of the so-called "Lusitania Effect", which includes events like the completely random explosion of the Maine in 1898, which was misused to incite outrage in just enough of these "masses" to get the ball rolling towards war.
Regardless of the tier, the objective is ALWAYS to get the other guy to "shoot first", so one achieves the vital moral high ground, after which hardly anybody questions the original agendas of the own empire's expansive drive anymore. Strategy: if one can goad the rival into firing the first shots, then that "rival" becomes the "enemy" of citzens with a million pointing fingers. Citizens who had never been a part of the "behind closed doors"-planning stages, and who had never been asked whether they approved of such a strategy in any democratic way. Even worse, in the leadup to Dec 1941 Washington DC knew beforehand, based on archival evidence, that the most likely target of Japanese expansive aggression would be others. NOT (mostly) Americans, but the inhabitants of the Philippenes or other regions closer within the "reach" of the aggressively expanding Japanese empire, which were simply expected to "catch the buck" for the background planners of the American Century without Washington DC powermongers considering it of importance to ask anybody in these regions of the world how they felt about becoming such "DEAD buck catchers" for the USA. The expansion of the US sphere of global influence, was of course already in the planning stages, and it had started with the global phase of US Imperialism, around the year 1900. The goal was SE Asia. Such long-term setups, are also accompanied, "in the big picture" by the studied phenomena/strategy called "hate/fear mongering".
During WW1, the Lusitania outrage contributed greatly to the "favoratism" of the Allies by the USA. Favoratism also just happens to be a "divide and rule"-strategy of power. Favoratism is mostly afforded to friendly states/leaders located in strategically valuable locations on the map. These "friends" would then "catch the buck" in the setup, in case of crises or wars (France/Great Britain slipped into the roles of "buck catchers" for the rising American Century, in exactly the same way, simply "scaled up" to the suitable tier).
When historians like Neiberg "find evidence in the archives" about how "shocked" Washington DC was in May/June 1940, as they watched on in horror as their "buck catchers" caught the buck, and started crumbling, it is of course not a "surprise" if one already knows what the geopolitical setup BEFORE that had been, post-1900...
The reality gained by an observation of events, only the events, and the EVENTS only. Events, unlike human beings, don't lie or try to misrepresent the truth.
1
-
1
-
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can deny that it exists, because just like gravity, it cannot be seen.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like gravity, one can ignore that it exists, yet benefit from it at the same time.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like gravity exposes its own existence, by simple observation, anyone can observe the existence of divide and rule...
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like giant vacuum cleaners, it creates multiple systems on multiple levels, each with its own benefactors, and sucks of the hard labor from a base, and funnels it to the top.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that 99% of the participants who are involved, are blissfully unaware how they are actors in a game and can claim innocence while defending the systems at the same time.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can mask it behind innocuous policies, like meritocracy, and still claim to be doing the best politics possible.
The same way one can plausibly explain how one is a state of isolationism, yet be peculiarly in a state of constant interventionalism and war at the same time: invisible magic...***
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can plausibly deny its existance, yet constantly profit from it.
The cool thing about divide and rule, is that at the very top, the systems of empire, it creates a giant vacuum cleaner that funnels power to the top. "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 – 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. . ."
The fruits of hard consistent invisible labor.
Divide and rule.
"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." Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire. - Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
The fruits of hard consistent unseen effects.
Divide and rule.
***With regards to Interventionalism: the USA was supposed to be Isolationist: John Quincy Adams delivered a speech in 1821 stating the USA's founding foreign policy of non-intervention and the US government's premise not to get entangled in or meddle in the affairs of another state. Adams issued the dire warning: Should America ever abandon her founding principle of non-interventionism, she would become "the dictatress of the world."
Just like Eisenhower issued a dire warning about Military Industrial Complexes, everybody knows how effective such warnings are.
The two-tier approach: get some people to say one thing, while others do the opposite...
Divide and rule.
1
-
Washington DC "manages" war...
"Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgment.[1] The subject is complex; several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, and unbiased analysis or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking,[2] and accordingly, a critical thinker is one who practices the skills of critical thinking or has been schooled in its disciplines.[3] Richard W. Paul has suggested that the mind of a critical thinker engages both the intellectual abilities and personal traits necessary for critical thinking.[4] Critical thinking presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism[5][6] and sociocentrism." (Wiki)
"In that context (not a ref. to the above but a previous chapter in the book), how America "manages" Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 percent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about 60 percent of the world's GNP and about threefourths of the world's known energy resources. Eurasia is also the location of most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states. After the United States, the next six largest economies and the next six biggest spenders on military weaponry are located in Eurasia. All but one of the world's overt nuclear powers and all but one of the covert ones are located in Eurasia. The world's two most populous aspirants to regional hegemony and global influence are Eurasian. All of the potential political and/or economic challengers to American primacy are Eurasian. Cumulatively, Eurasia's power vastly overshadows America's. Fortunately for America, Eurasia is too big to be politically one..." THE GRAND CHESSBOARD American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski
Critical question.
If that is the realisation, then what is the strategy to avoid that?
Ahem..."manages"...
Last time I checked, "thoughts and prayers" are neither a strategy, nor a management style.
What Brzezinski fails to elaborate on in his book, is that his "periphery" of states stretching from South East Asia, via the Indian subcontinent, through Africa and from there to South America, just like Great Britain and the U.S.A. was once the "periphery" of Europe...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Under the new Trump admin of Neocon imperialists, the USA will pull out of NATO and leave the EU like "Uriah" on the frontlines, to face Russia by themselves.
Read the strategy: it is more than 2,000 years old, but Europeans still don't get that the USA is "not your friend" (loosely quoting Henry Kissinger). There will be sufficient numbers of Americans cheering and banner waving the resulting "just in isolation"-narrative. Chanting their "Let those European warmongers fight again, nothing to do with me..."-slogans. Just like there will always be sufficient numbers of Americans to cheer and banner wave for almost ANY strategy and practically ANY narrative. Don't subvert your own safety to the American people. They are as clueless as everybody else with regards to geopolitics and grand strategy. Don't enshrine your own future to self-centred people who couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag, yet they strut around as if the entire world owes them something. Also do not rely on the "sane half" of American citizens to "save you," for they are as powerless against their own government, as YOU are against yours. All equally distracted by own problems, ignorant of world affairs, indifferent to world affairs, or simply complacent when their state chooses war.
The war in the Ukraine is to a great extent a war of Washington DC's own making. Let's not forget that the current Trump admin, was also the past Trump admin (2017-2021) while the encroaching/encircling of Russia/China was continuously implemented, a standing grand strategy and geopolitical policy regardless of who is the figurehead in the WH.
To recognize that, we must look at what did NOT happen after around the year 2000, which was full Washington DC support for a comprehensive European security agreement (incl. Russia), which then lay the foundation for the crisis/war escalating events after 2014. No amount of cherry picking and finger pointing will deflect from what is the reality: specific Washington DC/Pentagon/NATO actors did not WANT it.
Now, under Trump, they will withdraw, and leave Europeans in the crosshairs, because European leaders are far too disoriented to realize they've been scammed...again.
"Wise men profit more from fools than fools from wise men; for the wise men shun the mistakes of fools, but fools do not imitate the successes of the wise." - Cato
1
-
1
-
If our so-called leaders willing to lie to millions of people, steal from millions of people, and kill millions of people in order to avoid the creation of unity everywhere else on the planet, then the opposite pole of that is that other "sides" then become an emergent reality as a RESULT of that intention to impose, and will resort to violence in order to achieve unity, to balance that out. That is the state the "dividers" want: they want others to "shoot first" so they can exploit the emotions following in the wake of that, for favorable narratives, so the own "side" can gain.
In their pursuit of greed, these leaders state that their systems pf power should stop wishing to be "liked" (Machiavelli/see footnote) as they sowed division to a point of death and war everywhere on the planet, in the attempt to hang on to the 50% of the world's resources they claimed for themselves as just, and that is what they do.
They impose minority rule by division over the rest of the planet, from a GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
They mask these intentions behind flowery declarations, kind words, acts of benevolence and altruism, which regardless of how heartfelt and honest they might individually be, stand no chance against the dividers (political hawks/Machiavelli) which sow their divisive plots onto the rest of the world's systems.
These dividers lie, telling their young men and women that they are "fighting for democracy" and "fighting for peace", or whatever. They have always lied from the geopositional vantage points, knowing they would not become a victim of the own divisiveness...
These dividers use hypocrisy to draw others like them, into their networks. They have always been hypocrites, because hypocrisy is a strategy of power, and trying to shame a hypocrite is a pointless waste of energy...
These dividers pound idealistic slogans into the minds of their own people, which they as deciders never aim to abide by. They have always done this, from a geopositional advantage, to train and finance willing fools...
Footnote:
"In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to 'be liked' or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position, of being our brothers’ keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and—for the Far East—unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better." (US Policy Planning Study #23)
And that is how divide and rule is imposed, without saying as much.
One hand preaching the gospels of peace, the other hand sowing the divisions which then lead to hatred, crises, and wars...
1
-
The idea that people have that their own countries are "fighting for the weak and powerless" is a misconception.
States and empires fight for their own benefit, and there is always a "price tag" for "help".
States and empires don't "fight for weak countries/people": The grand strategy is called "the proxy".
Proxy wars always have big and little brothers.
Unless the "big brother" and the "little brother" are in the same boat there is no equality in outcome.
Unless the "brothers in arms" are exposed to the same or similar level of danger and are facing the same or similar potential ill-effects due to own actions/inactions, then it is an unequal relationship. Unless all parties suffer similar percentages of financial and human losses, and risk a similar percentage of destruction to their property and territory, then it is in effect "a proxy" which has been set up for the fall.
The ones losing most are the "proxy" of course.
In politics and big business, nobody does anything for free.
How one writes history is more a matter of framing: for example the widespread misconception of "good empires on the right side of history, fighting for the little guy" (aka "the poor people"-argument): notice just how...ahem..."coincidentally" these "poor people" just happen to live in regions of the planet with raw materials/strategic value. Empires are suspiciously very keen on "fighting for democracy/freedom" when these battles take place in areas of the planet benefitting own gain in some or other form, or beneficial to the own rise in power.
In strategy, the so-called "fighting for the little guy/democracy/freedom" is nothing else than "creating a proxy" or "proxy wars" for own gain.
It's the same thing, simply using different words or "putting a spin" on words by changing the perspective, thereby making it more palatable and advantangeous to the own cause.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. 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-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa 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 in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, 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. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
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." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being 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 the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. 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) regarding Eurasia for the template. 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-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
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", 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 millions and 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.
1
-
From the intro.
These "lofty ideals" to just "want peace," as stated in such declarations, for the best interests of the locals, as proclaimed by Washington DC, has a rhyming pattern. It is what the USA also claims to wish for the ME.
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.
1
-
Feb 17, 2024 — 'If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu,' says US Secretary of State Blinken...
Remember the names of all their "lunches."
Remember all their victims.
As millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy. All around the world, millions of others like Aaron Bushell have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Eastern Europe and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
@sleo3720 Global hegemons set up entire regions of the planet for failure, and then claim that all they want is peace. In case you wish to aid in personally adding that "tiny drop into the Pacific Ocean," in order to pull the rug from underneath these eternal meddlers, then see the above essay. Such a personal strategy, would then indirectly aid those wishing to gain full sovereignty over the own homelands, in the ME, Africa, South America, etc.
Western "interests" in S.E. Asia started during the era of US/European imperialism, of which a great part was started with the own "divide and rule" entries into India and China during the 18th and 19th centuries, and the framework of everything we see today is the inability of empires to let go of previous vassals.
1
-
Brian, in case you read this, and regarding how old and indicative this "technique" you are describing is, and how destructive it is.
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and lose is closer to what happened.
DIVIDE AND CONTROL
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, as a a predictable pattern in case of disruptions to European capitals striving for a European balance of power, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels, and any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain, simply needed to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets. Once "divided", there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Some examples regarding the theory in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors would offer a foothold in Europe.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have such consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement after 1895, amongst other less "valuable" suitors, was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below). The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises made"...lol
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...lol.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below footnote explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics sterted with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947. It is alive and well. It has surrounded every aspect of power politics on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Same with the funding of opposing European leaders and states (for example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s).
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else, while "eating popcorn and chips"...
1
-
1
-
There are examples of the "division of Europe" on several levels and an advantage for the "alpha". These examples are not isolated cases, but form a pattern in a political game (in geopolitics/grand strategy = avoid the unity of the "others", because unity = strength).
Germany must now shrink in order to adapt to the "new world", and limited resources must go elsewhere...
From now on, the new direct encirclers of Russia in the west (Poland, Ukraine, etc.) must grow , and will be supported as "proxies" for the alpha. The "carrot" of power is there today ("Three Seas Initiative"), just like 1918 (see "Intermarium Eastern Europe"). It's time for the "Polish Wirtschaftswunder"-years...
Poland and other "alliances of willing" will be favored..
Favored?
Where have I heard that one before?
What is the policy?
Japan as "an encircler" is still needed (China/Russia).
German growth will take a back seat.
The EU's core (west of Europe) must suffocate, and others further east must rise in power...
What a coincidence that the young/vibrant societies further east are also "more willing to fight" than the older populations in the domographically weakening Western Europe/USA (search for: "research gate dot net willingness-to-fight polls", or alternatively: "gallup international-global-survey-shows-three-in-five-willing-to-fight-for-their-country").
What the survey reveals is that while in Western Europe it is low (around 20%), but increases the younger, poorer, and more religious a society becomes.
Weird coincidence, I'm sure.
Too bad if millions like the unity, peace and prosperity the EU has resulted in.
The EU with its "core power" in Western Europe, has outlasted its usefullness.
1
-
I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc...
Sorry to burst your bubble.
I've got some bad news for all you "never gonna fight"-fanboys.
YOU. WILL. GO.
Capturing the hearts and minds of the (mainly) young, rebellious, and easily-influenced, is a long-term goal of what W.T. Stead set out to do as the "Americanization of the World" (book) on all tiers: ideology, food, industrial products, movies, language, etc. Of course, what he didn't mention back then almost a hundred years ago when this global strategy started, was that this was in effect an old Roman-era strategy of power: to morph the conquered, to become "like Rome." Fill the bellies of the global masses ("Bread") and distract them with entertainment ("Circuses"), and then turn them into the tools of the empire.
Beware of the divide-and-rule strategy.
It gave whites ("Europeans") the basis of the power in the past, and they still employ it systemically today, on multiple tiers, and the BASIS of their POWER was the ability to keep all the other states/countries/races in the world "down" in power, by setting them up against each other, to a point of warring each other.
The advantage in power afforded to a system by a geographical distance from rival powers, in combination with parallel factors like an advanced political system with entrenched institutions, wide-ranging trade- and financial system, high population density, a skilled and highly educated work force, favorable climate, abundant raw materials or safe access to these, high level of industrialization, a technological edge, modern infrastructure, strong military, and a well-organized society on all levels, with a stabilizing wide-ranging unity within the own borders.
Divide-and-rule was the advantage they thought they held 100 and 200 years ago, and they think it still is today.
There can be only 1 "winner". The others are the systemic "cannon fodder" for the gain of the few "buck passers".
Democratic systems of course offer the eternal opportunity for eternal "passing the buck": nobody ever did anything, nobody ever decided anything, everybody can always simply point the finger, everywhere else. The prefect systems for all kinds of cowards, slimeballs, 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 finger-pointers...
Teach your children well...
Of course these hundreds of comments by Americans and Canadians mirror the comments made by hundreds and hundreds of funny 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" or my personal favourite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the leadup to their declaration 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", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war").
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power (in stages after 1890), in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) and their "buck-catchers", nodded off by the "buck passers" which hold the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around. The global elites will draft YOUR daughter, before they send their own sons to the warzones they have created for their own systemic gains. The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging ...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbours, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed right through to today.
Whatever...
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 of the world. 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.
During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand).
The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction (MIRVs carrying nukes) as it was around the year 1945.
It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Asia, Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join up...
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Only once there is an impact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial well-organized rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, international big business, and lobby-friendly Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
How the USA got its foot in the door of European affairs.
"The Paris Economy Pact was an international economic agreement reached at the Paris Economic Conference, held from 14 June 1916 in Paris. The meeting, held at the height of World War I, included representatives of the Allied Powers: Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and Russia.[1] The pact was intended to isolate the Central Powers ... The Allied Powers envisioned isolating them through trade sanctions after the war. A standing body, the Comité permanent international d'action économique, based in Paris, was established to monitor the implementation of the pact."
Who, apart from the Central Powers, was also missing from the "deals made"?
A quick review reveals that not only the Central Powers were intended to become isolated and left at the mercy of "the winners".
Obviously, a quick review of those powers included in this "pact", united per treaty, not only threatened to overpower the USA economically as the post war powerhouse of the world, but also encroach on it geopolitically....ooooops.
[cont.] "The pact was of great concern to the American government, led by President Woodrow Wilson, which (sic.) 'saw the continued fragmentation of Europe to be a risk for continued conflict'.[2] US Secretary of State Robert Lansing asked the staff of the US embassy in Paris to monitor ... The issue of central concern to the United States was that the pact included schemes for the subsidization and the government ownership of manufacturing enterprises and the division of European markets for the pact participants."
Note, not only all European markets would be under the control of this new alliance, but also all of the defeated powers overseas territories and markets. Of course the "worried about poor Europeans" was simply the pretext. Of course a statement than one is "worried about people", sounds a lot better than stating one is worried about markets or influence.
Suggestion: Look at a map. If it is still not possible to envision US fears, simply paint all the powers (all of Europe, incl. colonial possessions and dominions) mentioned in red, and the USA in blue...
Wiki "The outcome of the Economic Conference foreshadowed the conflict between the United States and the Allies during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference.[3] The past concern of the US government with the pact remains fossilized in the US Code, in Title 19, Section 1332(c), which gives the United States International Trade Commission the "power to investigate the Paris Economy Pact and similar organizations and arrangements in Europe." [wiki]
The price of greed.
As an effect of own greed, and the willpower of the so-called "winners" to rule and dominate the the world by excluding their neighbors, the opportunity was given for the USA to enter European affairs.
Like the famous image of the "vacuum cleaner salesman putting his foot in the door", Uncle Sam was not going to be kept outside of European affairs, and would never remove that "foothold" from it again...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Divide and rule/conquer" is the biggest "Jedi mind trick" in history, and in current times.
The fictional "Jedi mind trick" is the fun way of saying how "powerful minds" can make inferior minds do exactly as determined, without the "inferior minds" realizing that they are being manipulated.
That part is however, not fiction.
Powerful strategists, often with names unknown to most people, can direct "weaker minds" in all classes of a society alike in almost equal share. Political leaders, the rich, the powerful/influencial, and commoners like the poor without much say can all become a part of the "Jedi mind tricks" of those creating the policies, even without direct knowledge.
Wisdom cannot be bought by money, so that ignorance, complacency, and indifference is widely spread on all levels of societies.
The makers of history, like those present at Versailles and other historical events were probably not even aware that their actions fitted the definition/criteria of "divide and rule/conquer".
A typical tactic of deflection is "throwing the hot potato" back with remarks like "well, OK...but everybody was doing it."
WRONG
"Divide and rule/conquer" has two parts.
1) the division of adversaries
2) the rule (or "dictating terms") such as Versailles
Yes, the "hot potato" being "thrown back" in defence is simply one side of the story.
Yes, eveybody can try to divide the opposition, and this is equally widespread in politics and sociology.
But not everybody can implement part 2), which is to "rule/dictate".
An example of this would be (as described in the comments thread) the statement that "The government of South Africa implemented strategies of divide and rule during the age of Apartheid in order to ensure the hegemony of a few (whites)."
One cannot now go "well, duh...everyone else did the same".
No, they could try "division" of the hegemons (white/ruling class), but the weaker side with little to offer has no way to impose/coerce the 2nd part, which is to then make a ruling or dictating terms.
"Divide and rule" as a concept is also only partly true.
*The main impact is that a power in a superior position grants access to its own resources (financial/industry/political dominance/technology/assets).
Access to power = leverage for own goals of minors.
That is the really intersting and crucial bit often left out in explanations re. "divide and rule/conquer".
Divide and rule works top down (superior power = make a ruling/dictate).
At best, sideways (equal power = conviction/reason as best strategy).
Never "bottom up" (best strategy = grovel/beg, lol).
The powerless "bottom" can try "Jedi mind tricking" their way towards power for all eternity until the smoke comes out of their ears, but without leverage, it is a fruitless endeavour.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
History rhymes.
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, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), 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 up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, 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 division 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 strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (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 (1945-1991), 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 of divide-and-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. After a short halt called "Cold War", 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 which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) 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.
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: "Don't 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 muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
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. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. 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".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage"), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up. The USA could afford to wait. Distance = impunity = advantage.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ideologically indoctrinated politicians 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 what they want.
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.
TODAY
It does not want total war, say the ideologues of the USA/collective West, but the capitulation of Russia. I ask you: do you want total war? Do you want it - if necessary - more total and radical than we can even imagine today?
These ideologues have strategized millions of deaths and total ruin emanating from London and Washington DC to spread their ideologies and spheres of influence, and that's just the wars since 1945. Not even to mention those before that. It is futile to try 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.
And the people?
Too ignorant to find out what is going on.
Too indifferent to care about what is taking place in their names.
Too complacent to do anything, even if they find out.
Too arrogant to consider that they might have it all wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That is what the Pentagon/Washington DC wants you to believe.
It's a smokescreen based on biases, or age-old prejudice. US leaders, creating the "little Benjamins ...he, he, he"-narrative style deception, want the world to believe that Washington DC does not have agency, but are lead by a corrupt few money elite who do the bidding of whoever pays them. Then, people make the quick connection that "it's the jwes again."
In reality as we know, most US leaders make their excessive wealths from eternal war, stocks and shares, links to corporations, , and other indirect benefits of "playing Roman Empire," all over the world, not ONLY in the ME.
1
-
1