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