Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Glenn Diesen"
channel.
-
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global equillibrium (natural order) as man-made "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million human beings creating "gardens" for themselves, at the expense of billions of other human beings, like the USA/collective West has done to the "jungles" these past 500 years, hiding behind their stories of hubris and jingoism...
The powerful use deception to torpedo any attempt of regional/over-regional/global equillibrium covertly (hawks). Good cops (neolibs/global-lusts) and bad cops (imperialists/militarists), hiding behind facades of empires, talking down to the plebs in their "bread-and-circuses"-INequillibrium, all well-trained to be finger-pointers at their favorite bad guys...
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
@ If somebody asks me I usually recommend Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding the geopolitics of Eurasia, then W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. With regards to how imperialism/militarism implements the aforementioned, one can read the classic War is a Racket, by Smedley-Butler. Stand alone suggestions regarding strategies of power are other classics like Machiavelli/The Prince, Sun Tzu/Art of War, or Clausewitz/On War.
One can add Robert Green/48 Rules of Power to the mix, and from there it isn't far to figure out how the powers implement divide-and-rule on multiple tiers: from domestic politics, and societies, all the way through to international relations. In case you prefer podcasts you can also search for these in YT since there are several channels which either read, or elaborate these books.
Regarding divide-and-rule: It inverts a lot of the logic of what is generally considered "popular/narrative history" (or "what everybody believes" and "as seen on TV") and with regards to what we are being told are the reasons for crises and wars.
1
-
@iRelevant.47.system.boycott Yes, one can only make a temporary "picture" at any particular point on the timeline, and at the time the SU/Russia, and "morphing" China with their own version of communism, and Iran (still under the imperialist control of the West until Khomeini), were deeply mistrustful of each other's agendas.
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.
The OP is about 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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemon.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quite or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else?
Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
Wait for it...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How history rhymes...
Meanwhile, after more than two years Boris Johnson has admitted that the war in the Ukraine is a proxy war for US/collective Western interests, and Vladimir Zelensky has stated that "there are those in the West who don't mind a long war [in Ukraine]" to extend Russia, using his peoples as tools for the gain of outsiders who drool over the profits (Mitch McConnell), or lust after the systemic expansion possible as result of great upheavals amongst human beings. Does this take the wind out of the sails of the "paid Putin puppet"-screamers, blindly chanting their MSM narratives against those who have said this from day 1? Not at all. In order to fit their world views, these tools will deny reality, rattle down the narrative to a point of making total fools of themselves. They would now have to believe that Boris Johnson, or Vladimir Zelensky are "paid Putin puppets", in order to square a circle...
This is exactly what is meant with fools arguing their way into the trenches their own leaders have deceived them into.
The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
1
-
@MrBallynally2 Sure. 😁
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups (e.g., Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
SETTLER COLONIALISM
The last 500 years of European/white settler colonialism as a subsection of the divide-and-rule technique. The strategy was "farms/forts" and a systemic, slow advance into the lands of ingenious peoples all over the world. Same happened in North America, Australia, New Zealand, the Levant, South America, Southern Africa, etc.
Broken promises, broken treaties, looking for excuses to make the next 'step' (ratchet principle). The only places the strategy of slow ponderous expansion failed was where the local systems were too numerous or organized (East Asia). The "template" might have various regional differences, but the end effect is always the same. Slow, step-by-step advance of the own ideology, economic systems, corporations and political power.
1
-
1
-
Political/economic/financial/cultural capture, as practiced by the West during the 1990s, in Eastern Europe and Eurasia, was reigned in by Putin, after the year 2000.
The USA/collective West will never forgive Putin for stopping the slow methodical American Century expansion via a pro-globalist, vacuum cleaning oligarchy which siphons off the wealth of entire regions of the globe, past the well-being of the local populations, into the coffers of the American Century rulers....
The same happened in China, as symbilized by the fall of Jack Ma, toppled by Beijing, showing that their strategists knew what the USA/collective West was planning.
1
-
The USA/collective West is like the allegory of the unbalanced spinning washing machine. Their entire mechanism is to avoid balance, therefore exploiting eternal domestic/international crises/violence is the name of the game. The load inside totally unaware of the "Why?".
___________________
Because..."avoid" is all the machine ever does.
AVOID THE EQUILLIBRIUM
That is the sole aim of the "affairs of the city" which is per definition the system of politics.
Divide and conquer works because not everyone involved knows that they are taking on a role in a power game. That's how the strategy works. Very few people really need to understand it. In English, the principle is called "Useful Innocent/Useful Idiot." From a position of power, you can animate people (usually through money, or ideology) who play a role, but they know not what they do.
The peoples in your "neck o' the woods," have been ruled by division since the beginning.
Because it's easier to divide people based on personal differences than to unite them based on their similarities. Strategically ambivalent elites use this to their own advantage. Now the intention is simply to avoid the unity in your society, in order to "rule" over the dissenters, which is the classic "divide and conquer" principle. This strategy is kept under wraps, due to a systemic desire to be "good", and on the "right side of history", and therefore overemphasizing the actions of philanthropists, political doves, peace activists, religious leaders, etc.
At the same time the activities of political hawks sowing divisions are downplayed, relativized, apologized for, mostly by politicians and strategists as the "story tellers" of history. But also by commoners, who simply parrot the stories without thinking them through, and who are NOT privy to the overall strategy (divide-and-rule in all its intricacies and nuances).
The main interest of these people for which we have been fighting wars for centuries has been the relationships between organized systems of finance and power, and systems of resources and manpower. Because united they are the only power that could threaten this group. They must make sure that the unity of others does not happen. ... For these elites ... the greatest fear is an overall creation of a unity of technology, capital and natural resources, and labor, as the only combination that has frightened the elites for centuries. So how does this play out? Well, they have already put their cards on the tilted table. They draw their invisible lines onto society.
Today all our so-called "leaders" are too weak to create systemic unity, to avoid their "friends" simply drawing lines all over the place, which they cower down to and must obey.
Like a ratchet, one click at a time, the "marching empire." Endless wars, constant disagreements, using imperialism to stay on top. Using "levers" of lies and distrust, via power players. Creating favorites: favoring the proxies who bow down and sacrifice themselves for the mastah. Pointing fingers, everywhere else, using the POWER of the mainstream media.
Divide-and-rule/conquer.
The oldest trick in the book...
Who has the POWER? Who has always had the GEOPOSITIONAL advantage of power to rule? The GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all other "buck catchers" (tools and other instruments of POWER in the Roman era style), but could not be reached themselves at any point in a historical timeline due to a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic- or political advantage?
“Divide-and-rule/conquer” as a standard strategy of power and thus the cause of nearly all conflicts in the world connects the dots on the timeline of history. Being far from the events resulting from their own meddling and political activities and being able to reach all other regions, but could not be reached themselves.
All they want is peace, they say. Who gathers the pieces of the great wealth and systemic gains when everyone else has failed to unite?
Different terms. Different eras. Same games...
The opposition that wants unity and equillibrium in a region is the "bad guy."
We, who seek true peace and harmony, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized.
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 variation of reality. They are playing 5D chess with the minds of 2D checkers players, within the compartmentalized brains of people who think they are smart.
1
-
1
-
The Balfour Declaration's goal was to form an enclave of Europeans in the Levant at a strategically vital location: near the Suez Canal. These whites would receive "papers" telling them it was "their" land. Ronald Storrs: "[A] little loyal Jew!sh Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism."
In BOTH cases (Europe/carved up island and people of Ireland, and the Levant, as carved up people), this was, and still is, divide-and-rule.
Grant favor to some, in return for favors. This is "transactional politics," which aims to divide according to set parameters and criteria, practiced by man-made systems of power, and has nothing to do with spirituality, which aims to unite human beings.
Favoratism of loyalists to a man-made system (empires): Look for it and discover hidden examples of the strategy to rule by division.
If mankind really wanted to, they could set up a unified Arabian Peninsula, based on the "God" they have in common.
But it is men, with their "gods" (not capitalized) who do not WANT a united Arabian Pininsula.
Israel is setting out in the footsteps of its imperialist creators to create "Greater Israel" on the Arabian Pininsula, just like the USA set out to create "Greater USA" (after 1776, and at the expense of its neighbors in N.America.).
Israel is following in the footsteps of its imperialist creators from Europe.
In North America, the USA followed in the footsteps of its imperialist creators from Europe.
Same storyline for the plebs, different region of the globe. In all cases, a fellowship of European settlers and favored proxies "created" the expanding empire (on the smaller scale of Ireland, the "empire loyalists" served the function of dividing powers for the British Empire/London). With regards to the current setup, everybody who is not completely blind knows that without any US/collective Western aid (various forms, incl. but not limited to, "nodding off"/tacit consent of a nuclear strike), that the proxy Israel would collapse in a few weeks in a fair fight (same as the Ukraine, and a surefire way to discover "dog" and "tail" in the games of power dynamics).
That makes it a proxy war.
1
-
Asking the wrong questions on a limited scope and timeline will not reveal the divide-and-rule technique.
The empire set off on the "G-G Line" from Germany to Greece, during the First Cold War after declaring war ("cold" war/1947).
It advanced to the "B-B Line" from the Baltics to the Black Sea (see footnote) after the "peace" was declared to the plebs after the 1990s, and a bright new future pwomised to all the children of history, believers...
How long do you think it will take for the empire, wriggling and writhing about ("divide-and-rule"), hopping over here and there ("pivoting") before they reach the "A-A Line"?
The goals of the "dividers" who wield the power, is simply that their politics is the continuation of war by other means...
‐-----------
The "B-B Line".
When people start thinking in terms of dichotomies like winning/losing, left/right wing, us/them, right/wrong, unity/division, they are already all "losers."
Think in terms of a desirable outcome. If not, lose.
Outsiders fabricate the "crescent of crises" around your heartland.
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
If outsiders come from outside and start drawing lines on the map, through your homelands without asking the people who live there.
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite. They allow outsiders to play the cards FOR them.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS. Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down. Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Rome. London. Washington DC.
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
1
-
1
-
The entire USA/collective West is NATO, and they were "poking the bear" as collective effort. Now all these weak minds are scurrying around, trying to find somebody more guilty than themselves. An age-old blame game.
N ew
A tlanticist
T erritorial
O peration
The stick poking the bear...or as John Mearsheimer famously predicted, the "buck passers" setting up millions of people in the "favoured country" to "catch the buck" if the effort to encroach/encircle another state failed, so others bleed for the own expansive aims.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans.
- Caucasus region/Black Sea (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those being encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon.
This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their current subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
------------------------------------
The bigger picture can be distorted, and the strategy of divide-and-rule hidden behind narratives of benevolence...
For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented (de facto reality). For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
What lessons can we learn from the current mess in the Ukraine?
Lesson 1:
Don't become the "next Ukraine".
Lesson 2:
Don't forget "Lesson 1".
1
-
If anybody wishes to know what is in store for the EU and other American "best fwiends" after 2025, look back in history to what the USA did to the British Empire after WW2, when it was bankrupt and weak. The first victim of the American Century was not as proclaimed and the generally accepted narrative of history, that "it was the USSR" (sic./Truman Doctrine, "Iron Curtain"-narrative), but the British Empire, which was cut down to size turning London from "British lion" to "poodle" in around 25 years, using economic warfare.
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise." [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500. My shoutout to the original author whose site is since removed. The information is corroborated by many similar analyses, incl. the elaborate details in Superimperialism by Michael Hudson]
A blueprint for how one Albion deceived the other, to become the "next Albion".
Pure unfettered opportunism.
After 1945 the USA used its own might as hammer and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). By 1945, Stalin in Moscow, smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and witnessing the collapse of virtually every other European power, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2. It was overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 US strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has self-centred imperialist aims and goals , one eventually destroys all alternatives, and when you try to defend everything, you'll eventually "defend nothing" (Friedrich the Great, re. a false allocation of clout and resources, in grand strategy and geopolitics).
That was preceded in geopolitics by a Washington DC shift away from a global non-interventionalist stand on international relations, towards a more active engagement in world affairs and global expansion which incl. European affairs (the study of "Offensive Realism") which started around the year 1900, symbolized by the Spanish-American War (1898). Something London lords happily signed up for with the "Great Rapprochement" (aligned and associated "friends only, no obligations", in the "interests"-reality of imperialism). London must have thought the good times were coming, alongside their "new friends" and making the rules for everybody else. Two Albions getting happily engaged...
What could possibly go wrong putting your trust in Washington DC?
AROUND THE YEAR 2000
In reality, your "friends" in capitalism over the Atlantic can't wait for history to repeat, to wait until Europe is weak again, exhausted from war, down in power, ready for the carving knives of OUTSIDE imperialism, all by the "friends" who are standing by and standing down to enter and benefit from the division and destruction they themselves greatly contributed to after the 1990s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The entire USA/collective West is NATO, and they were "poking the bear" as collective effort. Now all these weak minds are scurrying around, trying to find somebody more guilty than themselves. An age-old blame game.
N ew
A tlanticist
T erritorial
O peration
The stick poking the bear...or as John Mearsheimer famously predicted, the "buck passers" setting up millions of people in the "favoured country" to "catch the buck" if the effort to encroach/encircle another state failed, so others bleed for the own expansive aims.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans.
- Caucasus region/Black Sea (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those being encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon.
This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their current subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
------------------------------------
The bigger picture can be distorted, and the strategy of divide-and-rule hidden behind narratives of benevolence...
For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented (de facto reality). For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
What lessons can we learn from the current mess in the Ukraine?
Lesson 1:
Don't become the "next Ukraine".
Lesson 2:
Don't forget "Lesson 1".
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA/collective West is like the allegory of the unbalanced spinning washing machine. Their entire mechanism is to avoid balance, therefore exploiting eternal domestic/international crises/violence is the name of the game. The load inside totally unaware of the "Why?".
___________________
Because..."avoid" is all this giant machine ever does [see footnote].
AVOID THE EQUILLIBRIUM
That is the sole aim of the "affairs of the city" which is per definition the system of politics.
Divide and conquer works because not everyone involved knows that they are taking on a role in a power game. That's how the strategy works. Very few people really need to understand it. In English, the principle is called "Useful Innocent/Useful Idiot." From a position of power, you can animate people (usually through money, or ideology) who play a role, but they know not what they do.
The peoples in your "neck o' the woods," have been ruled by division since the beginning.
Because it's easier to divide people based on personal differences than to unite them based on their similarities. Strategically ambivalent elites use this to their own advantage. Now the intention is simply to avoid the unity in your society, in order to "rule" over the dissenters, which is the classic "divide and conquer" principle. This strategy is kept under wraps, due to a systemic desire to be "good", and on the "right side of history", and therefore overemphasizing the actions of philanthropists, political doves, peace activists, religious leaders, etc.
At the same time the activities of political hawks sowing divisions are downplayed, relativized, apologized for, mostly by politicians and strategists as the "story tellers" of history. But also by commoners, who simply parrot the stories without thinking them through, and who are NOT privy to the overall strategy (divide-and-rule in all its intricacies and nuances).
The main interest of these people for which we have been fighting wars for centuries has been the relationships between organized systems of finance and power, and systems of resources and manpower. Because united they are the only power that could threaten this group. They must make sure that the unity of others does not happen. ... For these elites ... the greatest fear is an overall creation of a unity of technology, capital and natural resources, and labor, as the only combination that has frightened the elites for centuries. So how does this play out? Well, they have already put their cards on the tilted table. They draw their invisible lines onto society.
Today all our so-called "leaders" are too weak to create systemic unity, to avoid their "friends" simply drawing lines all over the place, which they cower down to and must obey.
Like a ratchet, one click at a time, the "marching empire." Endless wars, constant disagreements, using imperialism to stay on top. Using "levers" of lies and distrust, via power players. Creating favorites: favoring the proxies who bow down and sacrifice themselves for the mastah. Pointing fingers, everywhere else, using the POWER of the mainstream media.
Divide-and-rule/conquer.
The oldest trick in the book...
Who has the POWER? Who has always had the GEOPOSITIONAL advantage of power to rule? The GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all other "buck catchers" (tools and other instruments of POWER in the Roman era style), but could not be reached themselves at any point in a historical timeline due to a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic- or political advantage?
“Divide-and-rule/conquer” as a standard strategy of power and thus the cause of nearly all conflicts in the world connects the dots on the timeline of history. Being far from the events resulting from their own meddling and political activities and being able to reach all other regions, but could not be reached themselves.
All they want is peace, they say. Who gathers the pieces of the great wealth and systemic gains when everyone else has failed to unite?
Different terms. Different eras. Same games...
The opposition that wants unity and equillibrium in a region is the "bad guy."
We, who seek true peace and harmony, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized.
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 variation of reality. They are playing 5D chess with the minds of 2D checkers players, within the compartmentalized brains of people who think they are smart.
》》》》》
Footnote:
Giant spinning/framing machine = MIMAC = cyclic dynamical systems of power
1
-
1
-
Systemic expansion (NATO/US/EU) was not a "mistake," but the continuation of policy.
Only the "target area" was shifted eastward. After 1900, the target area first encircled, then "carved up" and morphed into tools was Central Europe, which at the time it was an alignment/alliance of various ethnicities, languages, and religions (aka Dual Alliance/Triple Alliance).
After 2000 the target area was Russia. An alignment/alliance of various ethnicities, languages, and religions (aka "the state" in Moscow).
The issue? The story tellers got you to cheer the first round of "carving up" called WW1/WW2, which was a single 30-year war....
Now their problem us, how to get you to "cheer" for this round.
1
-
1
-
The REAL aim is still China.
Spot their "frontlines" (in times of peace) as potential "unsinkable aircraft carriers."
Russia, desired as territory as eventually "carved up" into smaller pieces and turned into future minions, is simply the means to an end.
Korea, Vietnam, Ukraine...
Will the little minions ("buck catchers" in strategy) ever learn?
Those who eagerly "carve up" others, even along arbitrary human-made boundaries on a map, dividing individuals, organisations, families, and businesses, are unlikely to agree with being "carved up" by someone else.
Korea was divided by imperialists during World War II (with the cooperation of the imperialist Allied camp) without consulting the local population about their priorities.
A few years later, they attempted the same in Vietnam, using the ongoing war of independence as a pretext (marketed as "the USA saving the world from communism"). This time the imperialist "winners" of WW2 were on opposing sides. The effort was unsuccessful.
The true objective of the Vietnam War: Containment of China
According to Wikipedia: "Main article: China containment policy. As articulated by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the Chinese containment policy of the United States was a long-term strategic initiative to encircle Beijing with the USSR and its satellite states, as well as: The Japan–Korea front, The India–Pakistan front, and The Southeast Asia front. Although President Johnson claimed that the goal of the Vietnam War was to ensure an "independent, non-Communist South Vietnam", a memorandum from January 1965 by Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton indicated that an underlying justification was "not to assist a friend, but to contain China". On November 3, 1965, Secretary of Defense McNamara sent a memorandum to Johnson, outlining "major policy decisions regarding our course of action in Vietnam". The memorandum begins by revealing the rationale behind the bombing of North Vietnam in February 1965: 'The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they support a long-term United States policy to contain China. McNamara accused China of having imperial ambitions similar to those of the German Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union. According to McNamara, the Chinese were conspiring to "organize all of Asia" against the United States: 'China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30s, and like the USSR in 1947—emerges as a significant power threatening to undermine our importance and effectiveness globally and, more distantly but more ominously, to unite all of Asia against us.'
Note that this is a common tactic in international relations: accuse the "other side" of actions that one is undertaking oneself. The strategy of divide-and-rule is kept hidden, while the opposing side is accused of having malicious intentions, without providing any actual evidence (the concept of "accusation without proof"). To encircle China, the United States aimed to establish "three fronts" as part of a "long-term effort to contain China": 'There are three fronts to a long-term effort to contain China (recognising that the USSR "contains" China to the north and northwest): (a) the Japan–Korea front; (b) the India–Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.'
Later, McNamara acknowledged that containing China would ultimately cost America a considerable amount of time, money, and lives. As is often the case, "extending" a rising rival power incurs "expenses", including lives, which is why the intention is to create proxies in artificial entities like "South Vietnam" to carry out such containment for the dominant power.
This is divide-and-rule.
Favouritism, or the "paid/supported proxy", can be employed during peacetime to undermine rivals or wage subversive warfare, or during wartime to reduce costs and losses while gaining systemic advantages after a "victory". When a proxy fails to achieve this "extension of the rival", it is quickly abandoned or discarded to cut the "investment", and a new proxy is sought. This pattern was evident in the 1930s: in 1939, the "first proxy" identified was Poland, and when Poland failed to "extend Germany" for a prolonged period, it was decided to provoke either Germany or the USSR to invade Scandinavia (Plan R4). Ideally, both Germany and the SU would invade Scandinavia, leading to a potential clash there, distracting attacks away from the heartlands. While Great Britain and France still cooperated, this was straightforward: both would benefit if the war "pivoted away" from Western Europe/British Isles into Scandinavia. If the attention could be focused somewhere else on the map, a Battle of Britain and a Battle of France could potentially be avoided, if the Germans became bogged down in Scandinavia for example...
That did not occur.
However.
Align with such individuals at your own risk.
They do not adhere to the Christian values they consistently boast as being "oh-so-superior" and worthy of admiration...
North Korea/South Korea (implemented "unsinkable aircraft carrier").
North Vietnam/South Vietnam (intention/failure).
East Ukraine/West Ukraine (in progress).
Always the same playbook.
The modus operandi has been consistent since 1776: advancing onto another power's borders (systematically), also through proxies, then blaming those who are encroached upon/encircled if they react, or blaming the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War advance began in the 1990s, so even if the Trump administration did not initiate the "marching order", it is a fact that he did not halt it either when he had the chance during his first term (2017-2021). This can be examined as empirical evidence (observation/map) which clarifies who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should avoid engaging with debaters who base their theories on ideology or emotions, especially not if the advocate reveals themselves as dogmatic, prone to logical fallacies or cognitive biases. Such individuals are not interested in outcomes but wish to make "debates" go in circles indefinitely, obfuscating, side-lining, and finger-pointing to evade the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current trajectory of the empire, which began when the USSR faced economic decline in the late 1980s, with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the advance)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the advance)
Continuously advance, trampling over one red line after another, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). If anything negative occurs, and lives are lost, always blame someone else. This type of imperialist behaviour, as demonstrated by Washington DC and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not begin solely after World War II. This marching order has been in place since 1776, with the first victims being neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territories were coveted. That was followed by Spain in the 1890s (put into action in 1898) whose desirable territories would create a link between the USA and East Asia.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries so that any economic surplus generated by that country is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US government, and especially to US bondholders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It remains the same today as it has since 1776.
The reality is that neither Trump nor any previous administration has halted this (systemic) "slow march" of systemic expansion, whilst getting the "buck catcher" to pick up the tab if things don't turn out as strategized.
Be cautious of the ideologically indoctrinated: Like a child, they confidently repeat things they do not know to be true.
1
-
@caninesandcompany ...because that's how divide-and-rule works.
Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar.
Washington DC s strategy is constant, using a geographical position of power.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
The powerful use deception to torpedo any attempt of regional/over-regional/global equilibrium covertly (hawks). Good cops (neolibs/global-lusts) and bad cops (imperialists/militarists), hiding behind facades of empires, talking down to, and gaslighting the plebs in their "bread-and-circuses"-INequilibrium, all well-trained to be finger-pointers at their favorite bad guys...
This is divide-and-rule.
We are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global equilibrium (natural order) as man-made "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million human beings creating "gardens" for themselves, at the expense of billions of other human beings, like the USA/collective West has done to the "jungles" these past 500 years, hiding behind their stories of hubris and jingoism...
The "divide and control/rule/conquer"-world is intact. It is practically as old as modern civilisation, and has never been defeated. Those with true power will do their utmost to ensure that the "divide and rule"-world we live in today, will rule for all times, because the DIVIDERS win, if all others fail.
The divide-and-rule system is a formless headless global system composed of every imaginable race, religion, ethnicity, language group, class, creed as an "ingroup" of power. This ingroup which intends to DIVIDE emergent unity elsewhere, contains all forms of "personal conviction" as "-ism" imaginable, with only a little input from top tiers.
Their aim is division.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar.
Washington DC s strategy is constant, using a geographical position of power.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
The powerful use deception to torpedo any attempt of regional/over-regional/global equilibrium covertly (hawks). Good cops (neolibs/global-lusts) and bad cops (imperialists/militarists), hiding behind facades of empires, talking down to, and gaslighting the plebs in their "bread-and-circuses"-INequilibrium, all well-trained to be finger-pointers at their favorite bad guys...
This is divide-and-rule.
We are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global equilibrium (natural order) as man-made "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million human beings creating "gardens" for themselves, at the expense of billions of other human beings, like the USA/collective West has done to the "jungles" these past 500 years, hiding behind their stories of hubris and jingoism...
The "divide and control/rule/conquer"-world is intact. It is practically as old as modern civilisation, and has never been defeated. Those with true power will do their utmost to ensure that the "divide and rule"-world we live in today, will rule for all times, because the DIVIDERS win, if all others fail.
The divide-and-rule system is a formless headless global system composed of every imaginable race, religion, ethnicity, language group, class, creed as an "ingroup" of power. This ingroup which intends to DIVIDE emergent unity elsewhere, contains all forms of "personal conviction" as "-ism" imaginable, with only a little input from top tiers.
Their aim is division.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
Das ist eine Strategie: bestehende Unterschiede absichtlich ausnutzen um Aufruhr zu erzeugen.
Die Mächtigen haben die Strategie des Teilen und Herrschen seit Tausenden von Jahren genutzt, um einen Keil zwischen die Völker zu treiben.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe bemerkte schon damals: „Teile und Herrsche, ruft der Politiker; vereinige dich und führe, ist das Schlagwort der Weisen.“
Manche Politiker und Machthaber tun dies vielleicht unschuldig und ohne nachzudenken, aber die meisten wissen genau was sie mit ihren spaltenden Zungen tun. Es ist ihre erfolgreichste Technik, die es ihnen ermöglicht über uns zu herrschen indem sie eine größere Einheit unter den Menschen verhindern. Das ermöglicht ihnen enorme Reichtümer vom Bruttosozialprodukt, das eigentlich alle Menschen zusteht, abzuschöpfen.
Wir sollten ihnen nicht erlauben, in den nächsten tausend Jahren genau so weiter zu gewinnen.
„Teile und herrsche“ (oder „teile und kontroliere“) ist eine politische oder strategische Strategie, die verwendet wird, um die Kontrolle über eine Region des Planeten zu erlangen oder zu behalten, indem Spaltung verursacht und interne Konflikte geschürt werden. Die Idee besteht darin, Gegner oder rivalisierende Fraktionen zu schwächen und zu verhindern, dass sie sich gegen die SPALTENDE Macht vereinigen. Die Strategie basiert auf dem Prinzip, dass ein gespaltener Feind leichter zu handhaben, zu kontrollieren, zu besiegen oder zu zerstören ist.
So funktioniert die Strategie normalerweise:
Spaltungen schaffen: Die Machthaber können bestehende Unterschiede absichtlich ausnutzen oder neue schaffen – beispielsweise zwischen ethnischen Gruppen, sozialen Klassen, Religionen, politischen Fraktionen oder anderen Gruppen innerhalb einer Bevölkerung. Indem die Führung diese Unterschiede betont, erschwert sie es diesen Gruppen, zusammenzuarbeiten oder Allianzen zu bilden.
Schüren von Wettbewerb und Misstrauen: Die herrschende Macht könnte eine Gruppe manipulieren, um einer anderen zu misstrauen, indem sie Propaganda, Fehlinformationen oder Manipulation von Ressourcen einsetzt, um Rivalitäten oder Spannungen zu schaffen.
Kontrolle aufrechterhalten: Bei internen Spaltungen ist es unwahrscheinlicher, dass die Gruppen eine einheitliche Bedrohung für die herrschende Macht darstellen. Jeder Widerstand wird durch konkurrierende Prioritäten, Misstrauen oder Fragmentierung geschwächt.
Historisch gesehen wurde die Technik durch die Ereignisse und Aktionen entlarvt und kann hinter von den Mainstream-Medien gesteuerten Nebelwänden aus Manipulation und Geschichtenerzählen verborgen, indem falsche Narrative geschaffen werden, die die SPALTENDE Macht begünstigen, oder indem behauptet wird, diese Aktionen würden den Frieden, die Versöhnung, die Einheit, den wirtschaftlichen Fortschritt, den Handel oder etwas anderes fördern, während in Wirklichkeit das genaue Gegenteil versucht wird. Nicht jede einzelne beteiligte Gruppe oder Macht muss sich ihrer Rolle innerhalb der Strategie des Teilens und Herrschens bewusst sein, weshalb diese Strategie ewig Bestand hat.
Die Wirksamkeit von „Teile und Herrsche“ liegt in der Fähigkeit, die Entstehung kollektiver Opposition durch Ausnutzung oder Herbeiführung interner Konflikte zu verhindern, was diese Taktik zu einer wirkungsvollen Taktik macht, um die Kontrolle über unterschiedliche Bevölkerungen oder Konkurrenten aufrechtzuerhalten.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To the outside divider, it does not matter how divisions appear in a region or on another continent, since their only aim, is to avoid unity in a region/another continent. When you hear or read concepts like "avoid" or "fragmentation" it is always a part of a top-down divide-and-rule strategy of power, to avoid unity from formating elsewhere. This avoidance of unity elsewhere is implemented using a variety of political means, incl. war (Clausewitz as "war simply the continuation of politics"). To leverage these divides outsiders create local tools to implement more division, or "buck catchers" to defend the own power base (ratchet principle).
Historically, the MO is always the same:
Once an intransient continent has been created for oneself, the regional hegemony tries to implement transient regions for other powers. Today there are only two continents with sole hegemonies: North America (single hegemony, weak neighbors) and Australia, where you live (single hegemony, but economically insufficient to "rule the world").
At three key points in history (around 1900, just after WW1, and around the year 2000), Europeans failed to create an intransient region for themselves, and therefore will remain transient for the foreseeable future.
All the other continents apart from N. Am and Australia are "transient" and therefore easy to divide
1
-
1
-
The USA, dragging along its weak "collective West", practices colonialism for corporations. (aka systemic expansion, hidden behind cool sounding stories for the plebs, of "freedom" and "fighting for democracy").
The technique is age-old: divide-and-rule.
------
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups (e.g., Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
SETTLER COLONIALISM MORPHED INTO
CORPORATE COLONIALISM
The last 500 years of European/white settler colonialism as a subsection of the divide-and-rule technique. The strategy was "farms/forts" and a systemic, slow advance into the lands of ingenious peoples all over the world. Same happened in North America, Australia, New Zealand, the Levant, South America, Southern Africa, etc.
Broken promises, broken treaties, looking for excuses to make the next 'step' (ratchet principle). The only places the strategy of slow ponderous expansion failed was where the local systems were too numerous or organized (East Asia). The "template" might have various regional differences, but the end effect is always the same. Slow, step-by-step advance of the own ideology, economic systems, corporations and political power.
Simply exchange the "forts/farms" of the past 500 years, with the current "military bases/corporations" to "see" the technique.
1
-
1