Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
3
-
The "paygrade brigade" rules with the lightest hand.
The statement to "govern with the lightest possible hand" (H.W. Crocker) as "indirect rule", is divide and rule/conquer.
"Lightest possible governing" when it is profitable (one tier), and "benign neglect" if it is potentially favorable (another tier).
The intention of "divide and rule" is not to facilitate unrests or wars, but in order to skim off the highest possible yield, with the lowest possible own imput. Those who "rule" with "light hands" amplify differences, or innocently state there is nothing they can do to try and even out diffences, thereby setting up those in the "cabooses" of the trains against each other, or employ such lower paygrades as "stokers" for the locomotives...
The actions are revealed by the events, not words.
"There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." - Warren Buffett
Buffett and his class "divide" the people into "paygrade classes" (trust funds) and "the rest"...
He is not only not using "words", he is also not explaining concepts by ignoring the elephant in the room.
They don't state HOW they implement it.
Of course, it isn't his fault, he is just "surfing".
The creation of pyramical structures, within other pyramidical structures, all striving to go up up up up in a giant pyramical structure with an "eye" at the very top to ensure it stays pyramical in shape for all time, as the little pyramids below elbow, push and spit (so-called "meritocracy").
For an exchange between the "paygrade brigade" pushing for war, and a "voice of reason" (Scott Ritter) in the "caboose", search for "Bid. en Mocks Mar. ine Who Exp. osed Government Mis. take" on You Tube.
Then look at the eyes as the tutoring takes place, and turn the sound off, and see how a nation drifts to a war which would kill and maim millions, displace millions more, and funnel trillions into the coffers of those exact same "paygrade brigades".
It is obviously an uneven playing field: the checks and balances, have turned into "cheques and balance sheets" a long time ago.
Or simply search for George "money beats peace...errr...err...sometimes" Bush...
Note how such elites will gladly tell us what is happening, from a "favorite perspective" (also "favoratism"), but that they never tell us HOW they do it.
Some in this "paygrade brigade" say they want peace, while some in this "paygrade brigade" will push for war at the same time, and those who push for war, will point at those who wish for peaceful solutions, to tell you what great people they are...
Notice always that it doesn't really matter what any advocate says, because everything that is said will set people up against each other, in the biggest pyramid of them all: the divide and rule/conquer world, where the rules they preach don't count...
Their only concern is how to "rule" your thoughts.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Yes, there is only "history".
As long as the facts are correct, then what is left is "perspectives".
One perspective should not rank higher than another.
Telling history from the perspective of millions of victims, has often been degraded as "Marxist" and therefore "less valuable".
The reality?
As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
No, not really.
A Germany, with most of Central Europe as Axis partners, and able to import everything it needed, and 100% focused on one frontline, would have defeated the SU.
It did not happen, because the British policy for the continent was that no single country should have full control over the entire continent.
Google "British policy of Balance of Power".
To achieve this, they used "divide and rule", like they did in their colonies. They would create friction between the different countries (for example Versailles) by drawing random borders. Then, the resulting infighting would keep their Empire safe.
Furthermore, their entire effort was directed at keeping an area of Central Europe known as the Heartland (google Mackinder Heartland theory) divided. In no way should a single hegemony control this area, since it would (in theory) unhinge the balance in the world, leading to the Empire collapsing.
Fast forward to 1945-1950, and Stalin had the Heartland, and Empire disintegrated bit by bit.
Churchill desperately tried to avoid this (google Operation Unthinkable), but the Americans kinda liked the idea of the British Empire collapsing, and refused.
Europe was carved up.
100 000 000 commie slaves for Stalin.
Thanks a lot, Churchill....
Great show 'murica...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
Greg B Truman had a forth choice.
Let the Japanese keep their emperor, and follow that up with a demonstration of the force of the new weapon in the Tokyo Bay area.
In hindsight, which is what we are doing here, it was even the better choice, because dropping the nukes almost led to a successful coup d'etat by young officers who would have fought to the death, partly because the Potsdam Declaration insisted on unconditional surrender.
Making a small concession to the Japanese, coupled with a demonstration of the new weapon over Tokyo Bay, in full view of the Japanese government, would have had the same effect ( Japanese surrender).
Furthermore, that would have meant that the support for the coup would have disintegrated, meaning even less likelihood of it succeeding.
Note, creating hypothetical scenarios (the millions of deaths following an invasion, which didn't happen) can also be countered by other hypothetical scenarios, which didn't happen.
In this discussion, there is no need to state WHY the bombs were dropped on cities filled with civilians. The reason WHY that happened is because those who made the decision felt absolutely no empathy for the Japanese civilians ( the firebombing raids proved this). Therefore any attempt to spin the discussion into 'we saved millions of poor Japanese civilians' is flawed from the outset.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Kaddywompous Thanks for your comment. Of course, Americans have to decide on their own social system, by way of mutual agreement...same as everywhere else in the world.
The reason I commented, is to dispel the notion that 'socialism is evil' using the 'socialism = communism' mind trick.
To make a long story short, socialism isn't communism, but rather a deep seated feeling based on the family model.
Of course, it is not ideal, like I wrote in my OP.
Your fears are unfounded.
For one, you might underestimate the depth of human ingenuity. The answer to demographics will not be immigration, but technology and capital. Robotics and technology will make up for a lack of younger people, and advances in productivity (based on technology and robotics) will cancel out income. You'll have less of a workforce in total, but the overwhelming majority will work in much higher paid fields, cancelling out the masses of badly paid workers.
To avoid social tensions, a well balanced social system is the only way forward.
And defense?
750,000,000 people in a unity (Europe) sharing equal values and ideals have nothing to worry about.
Western leaders (and the US would be wise to integrate) have learned that it makes far more sense to divide the load of 'ruling the world' on as many shoulders as possible, and that there is no need for self-proclaimed 'policemen' with an arrogant attitude of 'calling the shots' :-)
So go ahead and scale down the US military...if the power and money hungry military industrial complex allows you to...
Who cares?
Again, that is something US citizens have to find a common consensus.
Whether they'd rather fund the insatiable military (and their 'end of the world' propaganda scenarios) forever, or rather invest in a well functioning social system, with affordable heathcare, education....etc., etc.
I, for myself, am looking forward to trading in my car for a robot when I retire in 20 years :-)
2
-
2
-
2