Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "The New Atlas"
channel.
-
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