Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "The New Atlas"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
Under the new Trump admin of Neocon imperialists, the USA will pull out of NATO and leave the EU like "Uriah" on the frontlines, to face Russia by themselves.
Read the strategy: it is more than 2,000 years old, but Europeans still don't get that the USA is "not your friend" (loosely quoting Henry Kissinger). There will be sufficient numbers of Americans cheering and banner waving the resulting "just in isolation"-narrative. Chanting their "Let those European warmongers fight again, nothing to do with me..."-slogans. Just like there will always be sufficient numbers of Americans to cheer and banner wave for almost ANY strategy and practically ANY narrative. Don't subvert your own safety to the American people. They are as clueless as everybody else with regards to geopolitics and grand strategy. Don't enshrine your own future to self-centred people who couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag, yet they strut around as if the entire world owes them something. Also do not rely on the "sane half" of American citizens to "save you," for they are as powerless against their own government, as YOU are against yours. All equally distracted by own problems, ignorant of world affairs, indifferent to world affairs, or simply complacent when their state chooses war.
The war in the Ukraine is to a great extent a war of Washington DC's own making. Let's not forget that the current Trump admin, was also the past Trump admin (2017-2021) while the encroaching/encircling of Russia/China was continuously implemented, a standing grand strategy and geopolitical policy regardless of who is the figurehead in the WH.
To recognize that, we must look at what did NOT happen after around the year 2000, which was full Washington DC support for a comprehensive European security agreement (incl. Russia), which then lay the foundation for the crisis/war escalating events after 2014. No amount of cherry picking and finger pointing will deflect from what is the reality: specific Washington DC/Pentagon/NATO actors did not WANT it.
Now, under Trump, they will withdraw, and leave Europeans in the crosshairs, because European leaders are far too disoriented to realize they've been scammed...again.
"Wise men profit more from fools than fools from wise men; for the wise men shun the mistakes of fools, but fools do not imitate the successes of the wise." - Cato
1
-
1
-
If our so-called leaders willing to lie to millions of people, steal from millions of people, and kill millions of people in order to avoid the creation of unity everywhere else on the planet, then the opposite pole of that is that other "sides" then become an emergent reality as a RESULT of that intention to impose, and will resort to violence in order to achieve unity, to balance that out. That is the state the "dividers" want: they want others to "shoot first" so they can exploit the emotions following in the wake of that, for favorable narratives, so the own "side" can gain.
In their pursuit of greed, these leaders state that their systems pf power should stop wishing to be "liked" (Machiavelli/see footnote) as they sowed division to a point of death and war everywhere on the planet, in the attempt to hang on to the 50% of the world's resources they claimed for themselves as just, and that is what they do.
They impose minority rule by division over the rest of the planet, from a GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
They mask these intentions behind flowery declarations, kind words, acts of benevolence and altruism, which regardless of how heartfelt and honest they might individually be, stand no chance against the dividers (political hawks/Machiavelli) which sow their divisive plots onto the rest of the world's systems.
These dividers lie, telling their young men and women that they are "fighting for democracy" and "fighting for peace", or whatever. They have always lied from the geopositional vantage points, knowing they would not become a victim of the own divisiveness...
These dividers use hypocrisy to draw others like them, into their networks. They have always been hypocrites, because hypocrisy is a strategy of power, and trying to shame a hypocrite is a pointless waste of energy...
These dividers pound idealistic slogans into the minds of their own people, which they as deciders never aim to abide by. They have always done this, from a geopositional advantage, to train and finance willing fools...
Footnote:
"In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to 'be liked' or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position, of being our brothers’ keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and—for the Far East—unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better." (US Policy Planning Study #23)
And that is how divide and rule is imposed, without saying as much.
One hand preaching the gospels of peace, the other hand sowing the divisions which then lead to hatred, crises, and wars...
1
-
The idea that people have that their own countries are "fighting for the weak and powerless" is a misconception.
States and empires fight for their own benefit, and there is always a "price tag" for "help".
States and empires don't "fight for weak countries/people": The grand strategy is called "the proxy".
Proxy wars always have big and little brothers.
Unless the "big brother" and the "little brother" are in the same boat there is no equality in outcome.
Unless the "brothers in arms" are exposed to the same or similar level of danger and are facing the same or similar potential ill-effects due to own actions/inactions, then it is an unequal relationship. Unless all parties suffer similar percentages of financial and human losses, and risk a similar percentage of destruction to their property and territory, then it is in effect "a proxy" which has been set up for the fall.
The ones losing most are the "proxy" of course.
In politics and big business, nobody does anything for free.
How one writes history is more a matter of framing: for example the widespread misconception of "good empires on the right side of history, fighting for the little guy" (aka "the poor people"-argument): notice just how...ahem..."coincidentally" these "poor people" just happen to live in regions of the planet with raw materials/strategic value. Empires are suspiciously very keen on "fighting for democracy/freedom" when these battles take place in areas of the planet benefitting own gain in some or other form, or beneficial to the own rise in power.
In strategy, the so-called "fighting for the little guy/democracy/freedom" is nothing else than "creating a proxy" or "proxy wars" for own gain.
It's the same thing, simply using different words or "putting a spin" on words by changing the perspective, thereby making it more palatable and advantangeous to the own cause.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
From the intro.
These "lofty ideals" to just "want peace," as stated in such declarations, for the best interests of the locals, as proclaimed by Washington DC, has a rhyming pattern. It is what the USA also claims to wish for the ME.
The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a "bark" by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War). Moscow was tacidly nodding off the observed reality, without too much interverence at this point in time, since gaining full spectrum domination in Eastern Europe was more important at the time.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
§§§footnote
The concept of the "straight out lie" is related to a variety of other terms within the spectrum of "political techniques," commonly defined as "strategic ambiguity;" and/or incl. such concepts as "lying by omitting," misdirection, misconstrued, spinning, framing, all either intentionally, or sometimes unintentionally.
1
-
Feb 17, 2024 — 'If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu,' says US Secretary of State Blinken...
Remember the names of all their "lunches."
Remember all their victims.
As millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy. All around the world, millions of others like Aaron Bushell have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Eastern Europe and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
@sleo3720 Global hegemons set up entire regions of the planet for failure, and then claim that all they want is peace. In case you wish to aid in personally adding that "tiny drop into the Pacific Ocean," in order to pull the rug from underneath these eternal meddlers, then see the above essay. Such a personal strategy, would then indirectly aid those wishing to gain full sovereignty over the own homelands, in the ME, Africa, South America, etc.
Western "interests" in S.E. Asia started during the era of US/European imperialism, of which a great part was started with the own "divide and rule" entries into India and China during the 18th and 19th centuries, and the framework of everything we see today is the inability of empires to let go of previous vassals.
1
-
Brian, in case you read this, and regarding how old and indicative this "technique" you are describing is, and how destructive it is.
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and lose is closer to what happened.
DIVIDE AND CONTROL
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, as a a predictable pattern in case of disruptions to European capitals striving for a European balance of power, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels, and any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain, simply needed to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets. Once "divided", there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Some examples regarding the theory in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors would offer a foothold in Europe.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have such consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement after 1895, amongst other less "valuable" suitors, was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below). The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises made"...lol
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...lol.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below footnote explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics sterted with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947. It is alive and well. It has surrounded every aspect of power politics on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Same with the funding of opposing European leaders and states (for example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s).
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else, while "eating popcorn and chips"...
1
-
1
-
There are examples of the "division of Europe" on several levels and an advantage for the "alpha". These examples are not isolated cases, but form a pattern in a political game (in geopolitics/grand strategy = avoid the unity of the "others", because unity = strength).
Germany must now shrink in order to adapt to the "new world", and limited resources must go elsewhere...
From now on, the new direct encirclers of Russia in the west (Poland, Ukraine, etc.) must grow , and will be supported as "proxies" for the alpha. The "carrot" of power is there today ("Three Seas Initiative"), just like 1918 (see "Intermarium Eastern Europe"). It's time for the "Polish Wirtschaftswunder"-years...
Poland and other "alliances of willing" will be favored..
Favored?
Where have I heard that one before?
What is the policy?
Japan as "an encircler" is still needed (China/Russia).
German growth will take a back seat.
The EU's core (west of Europe) must suffocate, and others further east must rise in power...
What a coincidence that the young/vibrant societies further east are also "more willing to fight" than the older populations in the domographically weakening Western Europe/USA (search for: "research gate dot net willingness-to-fight polls", or alternatively: "gallup international-global-survey-shows-three-in-five-willing-to-fight-for-their-country").
What the survey reveals is that while in Western Europe it is low (around 20%), but increases the younger, poorer, and more religious a society becomes.
Weird coincidence, I'm sure.
Too bad if millions like the unity, peace and prosperity the EU has resulted in.
The EU with its "core power" in Western Europe, has outlasted its usefullness.
1
-
I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc...
Sorry to burst your bubble.
I've got some bad news for all you "never gonna fight"-fanboys.
YOU. WILL. GO.
Capturing the hearts and minds of the (mainly) young, rebellious, and easily-influenced, is a long-term goal of what W.T. Stead set out to do as the "Americanization of the World" (book) on all tiers: ideology, food, industrial products, movies, language, etc. Of course, what he didn't mention back then almost a hundred years ago when this global strategy started, was that this was in effect an old Roman-era strategy of power: to morph the conquered, to become "like Rome." Fill the bellies of the global masses ("Bread") and distract them with entertainment ("Circuses"), and then turn them into the tools of the empire.
Beware of the divide-and-rule strategy.
It gave whites ("Europeans") the basis of the power in the past, and they still employ it systemically today, on multiple tiers, and the BASIS of their POWER was the ability to keep all the other states/countries/races in the world "down" in power, by setting them up against each other, to a point of warring each other.
The advantage in power afforded to a system by a geographical distance from rival powers, in combination with parallel factors like an advanced political system with entrenched institutions, wide-ranging trade- and financial system, high population density, a skilled and highly educated work force, favorable climate, abundant raw materials or safe access to these, high level of industrialization, a technological edge, modern infrastructure, strong military, and a well-organized society on all levels, with a stabilizing wide-ranging unity within the own borders.
Divide-and-rule was the advantage they thought they held 100 and 200 years ago, and they think it still is today.
There can be only 1 "winner". The others are the systemic "cannon fodder" for the gain of the few "buck passers".
Democratic systems of course offer the eternal opportunity for eternal "passing the buck": nobody ever did anything, nobody ever decided anything, everybody can always simply point the finger, everywhere else. The prefect systems for all kinds of cowards, slimeballs, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and finger-pointers...
Teach your children well...
Of course these hundreds of comments by Americans and Canadians mirror the comments made by hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become" or my personal favourite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the leadup to their declaration of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war").
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power (in stages after 1890), in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) and their "buck-catchers", nodded off by the "buck passers" which hold the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around. The global elites will draft YOUR daughter, before they send their own sons to the warzones they have created for their own systemic gains. The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging ...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbours, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed right through to today.
Whatever...
Guess who "wins"?
The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand).
The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction (MIRVs carrying nukes) as it was around the year 1945.
It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Asia, Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join up...
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Only once there is an impact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial well-organized rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, international big business, and lobby-friendly Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
How the USA got its foot in the door of European affairs.
"The Paris Economy Pact was an international economic agreement reached at the Paris Economic Conference, held from 14 June 1916 in Paris. The meeting, held at the height of World War I, included representatives of the Allied Powers: Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and Russia.[1] The pact was intended to isolate the Central Powers ... The Allied Powers envisioned isolating them through trade sanctions after the war. A standing body, the Comité permanent international d'action économique, based in Paris, was established to monitor the implementation of the pact."
Who, apart from the Central Powers, was also missing from the "deals made"?
A quick review reveals that not only the Central Powers were intended to become isolated and left at the mercy of "the winners".
Obviously, a quick review of those powers included in this "pact", united per treaty, not only threatened to overpower the USA economically as the post war powerhouse of the world, but also encroach on it geopolitically....ooooops.
[cont.] "The pact was of great concern to the American government, led by President Woodrow Wilson, which (sic.) 'saw the continued fragmentation of Europe to be a risk for continued conflict'.[2] US Secretary of State Robert Lansing asked the staff of the US embassy in Paris to monitor ... The issue of central concern to the United States was that the pact included schemes for the subsidization and the government ownership of manufacturing enterprises and the division of European markets for the pact participants."
Note, not only all European markets would be under the control of this new alliance, but also all of the defeated powers overseas territories and markets. Of course the "worried about poor Europeans" was simply the pretext. Of course a statement than one is "worried about people", sounds a lot better than stating one is worried about markets or influence.
Suggestion: Look at a map. If it is still not possible to envision US fears, simply paint all the powers (all of Europe, incl. colonial possessions and dominions) mentioned in red, and the USA in blue...
Wiki "The outcome of the Economic Conference foreshadowed the conflict between the United States and the Allies during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference.[3] The past concern of the US government with the pact remains fossilized in the US Code, in Title 19, Section 1332(c), which gives the United States International Trade Commission the "power to investigate the Paris Economy Pact and similar organizations and arrangements in Europe." [wiki]
The price of greed.
As an effect of own greed, and the willpower of the so-called "winners" to rule and dominate the the world by excluding their neighbors, the opportunity was given for the USA to enter European affairs.
Like the famous image of the "vacuum cleaner salesman putting his foot in the door", Uncle Sam was not going to be kept outside of European affairs, and would never remove that "foothold" from it again...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Divide and rule/conquer" is the biggest "Jedi mind trick" in history, and in current times.
The fictional "Jedi mind trick" is the fun way of saying how "powerful minds" can make inferior minds do exactly as determined, without the "inferior minds" realizing that they are being manipulated.
That part is however, not fiction.
Powerful strategists, often with names unknown to most people, can direct "weaker minds" in all classes of a society alike in almost equal share. Political leaders, the rich, the powerful/influencial, and commoners like the poor without much say can all become a part of the "Jedi mind tricks" of those creating the policies, even without direct knowledge.
Wisdom cannot be bought by money, so that ignorance, complacency, and indifference is widely spread on all levels of societies.
The makers of history, like those present at Versailles and other historical events were probably not even aware that their actions fitted the definition/criteria of "divide and rule/conquer".
A typical tactic of deflection is "throwing the hot potato" back with remarks like "well, OK...but everybody was doing it."
WRONG
"Divide and rule/conquer" has two parts.
1) the division of adversaries
2) the rule (or "dictating terms") such as Versailles
Yes, the "hot potato" being "thrown back" in defence is simply one side of the story.
Yes, eveybody can try to divide the opposition, and this is equally widespread in politics and sociology.
But not everybody can implement part 2), which is to "rule/dictate".
An example of this would be (as described in the comments thread) the statement that "The government of South Africa implemented strategies of divide and rule during the age of Apartheid in order to ensure the hegemony of a few (whites)."
One cannot now go "well, duh...everyone else did the same".
No, they could try "division" of the hegemons (white/ruling class), but the weaker side with little to offer has no way to impose/coerce the 2nd part, which is to then make a ruling or dictating terms.
"Divide and rule" as a concept is also only partly true.
*The main impact is that a power in a superior position grants access to its own resources (financial/industry/political dominance/technology/assets).
Access to power = leverage for own goals of minors.
That is the really intersting and crucial bit often left out in explanations re. "divide and rule/conquer".
Divide and rule works top down (superior power = make a ruling/dictate).
At best, sideways (equal power = conviction/reason as best strategy).
Never "bottom up" (best strategy = grovel/beg, lol).
The powerless "bottom" can try "Jedi mind tricking" their way towards power for all eternity until the smoke comes out of their ears, but without leverage, it is a fruitless endeavour.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1