Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Fire of Learning" channel.

  1. London went to war on the continent multiple times, by own admission, to "balance powers" on the continent... London's standpoint, by own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at a given time." Primary source material: [Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany] In a nutshell = the strongest side is the default rival in peace, and the default enemy in war. And so the London lords played their "balancing games". From: The Complete Yes Minister: "Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe. How absolutely funny... They gave their diplomatic worst, were proud if it, and millions of young men from the Empire paid the price. Huddled in muddy trenches, getting their heads blown off, or drowning like rats on the seven seas. That's what you get if you play follow the leader, when these leaders play "divide and rule" with the continent, for own gain. Millions dead. Millions mutilated. Too bad. So sad. Price tag for these stupid "games"? A ruined British Empire. Good riddance. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. They "hopped on the scale" and they "hopped" their way into extinction...
    2
  2. So the London lords set off to set Europe up for failure...TWICE. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany] In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances. The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf... In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power. In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win. That is how the lords "played". Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists. After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule. Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States). Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else... Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule. Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule... Seperating families. Divide and rule. Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule... Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent. These are the "tools" of "divide and rule". Never a "price tag" for own actions... Right? WRONG Brits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..." Right? WRONG To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere... "By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet." [Google: The_Great_Rapprochement] Sooooo gweat. Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals.... Right? WRONG After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint. What could possibly go wrong? "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] A "ring which ruled them all". The American Century. So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their most profitable markets. No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire". US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt. They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE. Right? WRONG... A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: "Empires" don't have "friends". Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"... Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring". Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world"... And after the war ended? They became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers", when Truman declared that the Brit's "best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946). Did they ask the London lords desperately selling everything they could get their hands on in an effort to save the Empire, if this was agreeable? ROTFL Of course not. Washington DC needed a lapdog, not an equal partner... So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC. That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting. Hop over here for a "temporary best fwiend" this year, then hop over there for a "temporary best fwiend" the next.
    1
  3. Around 1900... Alongside other measures, the Treaty of Versailles was a "divide and rule"-strategy, by outside powers, intent on gaining power by dividing Europeans. This simple statement or theory, can be validated by simply investigating the events around the turn of the previous century, and cutting out the distortions created by "dissention" (note: "sowing dissention" in systems, is a means used in the "divide an rule"-technique). There is a saying stating that if one cannot explain something in a few minutes, that it is probably false: At Versailles, Europeans were "divided" with a "ruling". The divide and rule strategy of and over Europeans, can be explained in three seconds... Of course, no superficially observed series of events can be concluded to be "a non-falsifiable theory" (Carl Popper), if there is not a substantial amount of evidence to corroborate it, and if the reader wishes, the comments section under the "His--tory Ro..om " educational channel on "Wilhelm II" (documentary), has more than 100 essays going back more than 4 years, to provide more than ample evidence for the theory of how Europeans 1) were once "divided and ruled" over (after around 1900), and 2) are still being divided and ruled over (around the year 2000), by outside powers. "The Force" to influence billions of minds is strategy. The most effective of these is the divide and rule/conquer technique. It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: wrong. It is so misunderstood, because it is as much a strategy of "top down" measures of power players, as it is of "bottom up" failure (human nature). The "dissention" is created by fanboys/fangirls defending the actions of their own "favorites" (individuals/systems/"-isms"/etc.) It is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling". Every system which does not specifically forbid the divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it. No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy". One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is. Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use the technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Like the Nazis, all power players regardless of the "system of gain" in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves... Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank. The favorite = the proxy. Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish. All that is needed is a position of superior power. The Big Lie is the power of the divide and rule/conquer technique, and even the Nazis hid their "Big Lie"-conspiracy theory, behind an even bigger lie: how they intended to play this game until they got into power after their failed coup d'etat. The "Big Lie" is not a myth but a misrepresentation of the truth. It is the power of "divide and rule/conquer" which lurks behind every strategy they follow, in order to gain. No human being has ever come up with a means to overcome this age-old technique of ruling over billions of people, because it is predicated on human nature itself, which is enduring. No power player wants to become associated with authoritarian, or "colonial" tactics and strategies, or Nazis, so they cannot use it as a political means to attack rivals: it will immediately result in blowback. The "Big Lie" conspiracy masked the divide and rule technique. No power player can ever accuse any other power player of using it, since it will immediately backfire: the accusation of using the technique themselves, which in most cases of intent of gain will even apply***. The disguise usually comes in the form of scapegoating or another form of appeal to the emotion of listeners, or addressing and fortifying their already existing biases. "Scapegoating" = an appeal to lower emotions of potential supporters. In our divided societies, appealing to these biases might always be that tiny little "weight" that tilts the scale in very tightly run political elections. Most power players read books on strategy, with the intention of using these strategies for personal gain, not because they wish to benefit you (the individual). There is always the urge to defend own favored systems, when one reads perceived "attacks" on these favored systems or own heroes, and the beloved own "-isms", which also reveal standard procedures, meaning the "attacker" soon falls into predetermined pathways to deflect and obfuscate from the core theory... Great Britain did not "win" from the "divide and rule/conquer" system they had set up in Europe, which was a matter of long-term standing policy (historical analysis based on the observation of events), which resulted in London making the strongest continental power their "default rival/enemy" system. Britons (average citizens) lost BIG TIME. Most of what we are fed by our systems, as "rote-learnt"-details, are the "99% ancillary details" which make us mere "Bricks in the Wall": not saying these theories are untrue or wrong, but simply that they are not as important on the ranking or "tiers" of events as on the top tier of geopolitics and grand strategy. For these geostrategists, divide and rule/conquer is their main strategy, regardless of what you as an individual believe. Footnotes: ***only applies in competitive "intent of gain" systems, not benevolent forms of reciprocal human interaction which are 100% fair, or such systems lacking "power" of any global reach...
    1