Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
@kimobrien. The USA wanted markets and spheres of influence, and "played" ALL European leaders like the proverbial "fiddles" they were.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "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. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) 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. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative.
It was a policy.
After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War).
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still some 15-20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
EPISODE I:
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE V:
"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]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had the global influence of the Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), 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, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The biggest danger to the world are ideologically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
1
-
Good theory, but IMO it goes even deeper than that, and goes back to the roots of how the extremes of every society (far left and far right) see the world, and intend to gain power whilst representing minority opinions: by the strategy of divide and rule.
The answer lies in the dichotomy between the extremes, and the fact that the Nazis refused compromise, or refused to submit to a higher order, both on the domestic and international level. Evidence for this is Hitler famously stating to Chamberlain that Munich was the first time he ever compromised.
Having used the strategy of "divide and rule/conquer" to gain power, meant they were obviously realistic enough to recognoze if it was being "played" in the opposite direction:
It was
1) either be the divider (of all others), or become divided by somebody else
2) either be the supreme ruler (of all others), or become ruled by somebody else
Why didn't Nazi Germany just surrender?
The political extremes don't surrender, because the extremes cannot compromise, because it would mean invalidating the entire ideology.
The Nazi all or nothing principle, in a nutshell: you are either for us, or against us ("no neutrality possible"), are "free" (and submit to our rules) or in a camp, and if you're not my "friend" (and submit) you are my enemy. My/Nazi/ingroup books survive, your/outgroup books are burnt. There is either "peace" (according to Nazi conditions) or war and if there is war, it is either we/ingroup totally win, or "we/ingroup" totally lose. If we win, it's either "gleichschaltung" (loser adapts and bows down) or "ausradieren" (wiped off the map). If the ingroup cannot win, and be the alpha, then they would have to get burried. More evidence of all this in Hitler's own statement in 1945 that the German Volk betrayed him with their weakness, and would have to bow down to the winners.
Basically everything on any tier of society or international relations was a dichotomy of the extremes, with no middle road or compromise.
The above is pretty similar for all ideologies who submit to "all or nothing principles".
1
-
1
-
Any documentary only covering Versailles is far too narrow, and can only serve as data to figure out the big picture. Simply a look at a small pixel of the larger image, and therefore too "compartmentalized".
Europe lost its top tier position as global leaders because their leaders could not find a suitable balance of power between the states, which was equally acceptable for all. Note that with Versailles and many other bad choices, ALL Europeans lost.
WW1 and WW2 was one struggle which roots go back a 1,000 years: the battle for continental supremacy between France and The Holy Roman Empire, with Russia off to one side of that, and Great Britain off to the other. This is how the quote "peace for 20 years" (Foch) should be interpreted.
WW1 and WW2 was simply another "30 years war" with the difference being that Atlanticists (the naval powers) stepped in and supported France as the "favored nation" as a proactive divide-and-rule strategy of intended global control and domination.
In the end ALL Europeans lost and became subjected to the American Century, whose post-WW2 Truman Doctrine was simply more divide-and-rule, to drive a rift between Europeans. After the Cold War this "rift" was simply "ruled" to be further east, and the desirable status quo of "Europeans set up against each other per outside ruling" was moved a few hundred miles eastwards.
Read Mackinder (1904), which found its logical continuation with the Truman Doctrine, and Churchill's Iron Curtain.
1
-
At Versailles, the policies of "balancing powers" were made in the back rooms...
Two great powers were not invited (Germany and SU).
Two were dissed (Italy and Japan).
The only time bomb was the altered reality of a changing balance of power.
Versailles only controlled one side of that scale...
That Germany was "allowed" to rearm during the 1930's (or "closing an eye to Hitler re-arming") was an effect of a policy dictated to the continent by London, and put into effect, yet again, at Versailles: Balance of Power.
So the later Germany/Hitler re-arming and standing up to rising communism suited the lords in London just fine...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_five-year_plan
[Note, the term "power" encompasses a wide range of qualities from population growth, level of education (including scientists, mechanics, and engineers), scientific advances, level of industrialisation, urbanisation/i.e. advanced society, infrastructure projects, increased GDP, and yes...soldiers, tanks, guns, airplanes...]
As the SU grew, and grew, AND GREW, so did Germany.
Perfectly fine, if you ask the lords...
It was "allowed" to "balance out" communism.
What could possibly go wrong?
Why complain about it in hindsight?
1
-
1
-
@bluemarlin8138 "What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003. Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
That's economic warfare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics.
The real question that should be asked, and therefore the premise of any debate is: Was it wise at the time?
To which the simple answer is "no".
They ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
@t
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
1
-
Ideologically indoctrinated politicians who lie, and the warriors they incite to fight to spread their ideologies, are the root cause of all evil in the world. One doesn't even have to infer much, since they will tell you straight in your face what they want.
According to the dictionary, an ideology is an organized set of political or economic ideas... for example, "democracy" and "capitalism," both of which are ideologies. Of course it's fine to be enamored by the own system, or favor it, but always heed the GOLDEN RULE. Further...do not lie, do not steal, do not ki!! to spread your own.
If one tries to list all the ideologically inspired lies and deceptions by politicians who have started/bandwagoned wars to (quote) "make the world safe for democracy" the list will be long and the victims uncountable, because the ideologues don't even bother to count them.
TODAY
It does not want total war, say the ideologues of the USA/collective West, but the capitulation of Russia. I ask you: do you want total war? Do you want it - if necessary - more total and radical than we can even imagine today?
These ideologues have strategized millions of deaths and total ruin emanating from London and Washington DC to spread their ideologies and spheres of influence, and that's just the wars since 1945. Not even to mention those before that. It is futile to try to educate the masses who are going into the trenches about the harmful effects of war. People already know it, but they are powerless against the forces that are leading entire regions into war. These top politicians, who sit in- sinecure comfort in peacetime and have bunkers in wartime, have no intention of bearing the consequences of their decisions.
And the people?
Too many are too ignorant to find out what is going on.
Too many are too indifferent to care about what is taking place in their names.
Too many are too complacent to do anything, even if they find out.
Too many are too arrogant to consider that they might have it all wrong.
Too many are too dumb to understand that words have meaning, and they therefore become the tools of others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. 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, 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 neighbors.
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.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism, by granting access to the own POWER...
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.
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.
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...
------------------------------------------------
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) 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 European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite, or at least avoid total disunity.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Today, just like at all points on the timeline, America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The "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).
"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 indivual 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.
---------------------------------------------------------
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-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same 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...
Who wields the POWER?
Four corners of the globe. Same games.
1
-
The distorters of history lie about everything. Even the Bible they claim to love so much....
When one does wrong, it doesn't matter how one justifies these wrongs.
Or, the true meaning of the Biblical "reap the whirlwind".
In the Bible (Hosea), Israel allied with the devil (Assyria), rather than trust in God, and subsequently lost their worldly "empire" (Hosea).
The biblical wisdom of not allying with evil (Stalin/communism) has been distorted over time, to become a justification for own actions ("reap the whirlwind" = punishment).
A fallacy.
It is only half the story, or "lying by omission".
Because "evil" has even less scrupples than oneself, and therefore allying with evil will mean that one will get screwed over by the devil one has allied with.
Read Hosea.
Even if one is an atheist, these wisdoms are based on thousands of years of human observations.
By own admission, GB allied with the devil (Stalin), and then set off to destroy the German people, rather than letting the two devils (Hitler and Stalin) "slug it out" to mutual destruction on the Eastern Front, while concentrating on the own priorities (Western Desert, Battle of the Atlantic, etc.)
1
-
1
-
@John Brewer
In case you are really interested in history, and especially the role of geopolitics7grand strategy, go to the Kaiser Wilhelm II video of the "History Room" historical channel here on YouTube. Choose the "newest comments first" setting (three little lines at the top of every comments section).
Then read my comments going back about a year, with evidence, links and references to the strategies the USA used to overpower Europe as the dominant world powers. "Europe" (aka "geography") of course includes GB.
It won't take you more than an hour or so.
There, I don't only explain which strategies the USA used to overpower the historical "alphas", the European colonial powers, but I also give details (links/sources/strategies/examples).
London thought they were clever, and that they could gain by dividing everybody else in Europe. "Divide and rule/conquer": note that "rule" has different meanings, of one meaning of the word is simply to "dictate terms" to others, based on an advantage in power.
To make it clear, London never intended "direct rule" over any continental country or adversary, because they were to weak for that, but rather to divide continental powers and thereby gain the advantage of dictating terms in case of negotiations, crisis, or wars.
What "the lords" didn't seem to notice, was that while they were "ruling" over the continent, based on a geographical advantage, somebody else was playing the same game with them.
It was Washington DC, playing "divide and conquer/rule" with Europe, and to the leaders here, GB was simply a part of "Europe" (geographical entity).
All explained, in great detail, in various essays under the Kaiser Wilhelm II documentary (aka "propaganda hit piece").
1
-
1
-
1
-
How did the USA go from an obscure colony to the world's nr.1 in the space of a relatively short time.
To discover how it happened in "a blink of an eye" on the timeline of modern history, let's go next level.
The impact of strategies on history.
These strategies are universal, and it therefore does not matter who one quotes, in which era, or what level of society or politics one refers to (micro- v. macro level dynamics in hierarchies).
"Observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership." Deng Xiaoping
To loosely quote strategy, Washington DC just had to wait long enough until their rivals messed up.
On the "empires"-level the USA's strategy starting around 1900 was fairly simple:
1) keep European powers as "divided" as possible, implemented by whatever means possible, but mainly using favoratism.
2) wait for ALL the others to fail.
Would such a strategy, whether planned or the unintentional effect of prior actions guarantee a success? Answer: NO
There is never a guarantee for anything in strategy, but if one has the geographical advantage (distance from squibbling Europeans, coupled with an own rising population, raw materials, a rapidly gathering industrial/financial base, increased education = increased innovation, all constituting "power"), then the US elites in their "preferred system" of corporatism could simply sit it out.
What was effected by favoratism was a "pecking order" of "friends" with access to Washington DC.
It does not matter how one justifies this political pecking order, because "justified" = an appeal to emotion = difficult to objectify.
What is important, is THAT a pecking order of European powers with access to Washington DC was established over a relatively short time around the year 1900.
Note here: A little-known detail is that one of the first US choices in this "pecking order" of European powers was actually Imperial Russia (by the Theodore Roosevelt administration). Why would the USA possibly "favor" Russia as a "choice"?
My suggestion: Look at a map every now and then, and consider the European balance of power at the times, and the aims and goals of these European powers at the time...
Is this an unimportant little detail, because it "did not happen"? No, this is VERY important, because it reveals strategies.
Simply saying "it did not happen, therefore it is not important" is a gross misrepresentation of history, which will then result in a gross misrepresentation of current events.
Anyway.
Any European division = a so-called "win - win" for the USA.
To the USA it did not matter what happened in Europe.
Whether Europeans ended up happily singing Kumbayah, or tore each other to shreds...it would be a "win" for somebody in the American Century. As long as there was no common European policy or overly powerful alliance in a comprehensive European security agreement (of sorts) which could potentially be directed at US plans to expand, there was nothing on the "elite"-level in the USA to worry about...
Note also that all of the above solely deals with the "elite"-level, so there is no need for anybody to feel personally offended.
Since no elites ever asked the "average American", there is also no need for any "average American" to feel offended on behalf of these decision makers, unless they choose to be. Also true, for all historical and current events, and for all citizens of all states.
1
-
1
-
As long as Europeans see their European Civil War (1914-45 see footnote) as a battle between good and bad they will keep on losing.
The Chinese leadership figured out that their "Century of Humiliation" (1837-1947) needed to end, by FIRST kicking the outsiders and their "interest models" out.
As long as Europeans (collective concept) keep on thinking in terms of words rather than concepts they will remain tools of the higher power. As long as Europeans keep on thinking in terms of "good/bad", or "me/you" or "us/them" or "this language/that language!, or any other DIVISIONS, rather than "Europeans/outsiders" they will remain tools of outside "dividers".
Same counts for the Arabian Peninsula, and anywhere else on the planet.
Hegel — 'History teaches us that man learns nothing from history.'
Studying history only teaches you how man-made systems of power justify their own wrongdoing.
----
Footnote:
In Western narratives, from the Anglo-Saxon/Eurocentric world view, a war inside East Asia concerning a variety of ethnic, religious and linguistically related peoples is known as a "civil war", but for the same historians and storytellers a war in Europe between a variety of ethnic, religious, and linguistically related peoples is a "world war". This is the logic of the "world according to the West" (USA/collective West), telling the rest of the world that "our issue is your issue, but your issue is your issue" just like they have done these past 500 years, and it's "just how it is" and the "rules based order".
Well, it's not 1600, or 1700, or 1800, or 1900, or even the year 2000 anymore.
Arrogance of power is only arrogance of power, as long as one has the power.
Once the "power" is missing, one is stuck with one's arrogance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Forget all the distractions created by the "-isms".
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
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, because it can be used invisibly in times of peace, AND in times of crisis and war equaly.
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
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. 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 division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to 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.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those 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 subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage"), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up. The USA could afford to wait. Distance = impunity = advantage.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
Individuals should avoid debates following the principles of "right/wrong" since such debates go around in circles forever. Debaters cherry-picking their "facts" and "dates." Obviously, everybody has a different concept of "right/wrong." Instead, point out causal effects of own actions imposed, and which were NOT a result of a "round table" negotiation such as The Concert of Europe was. These decisions after the Napoleonic Wars, to create a balance of powers per mutual agreement after a major tragedy which affected all, worked amazingly well for 100 years, despite the limited wars which continued after 1815. The first step of those seeking peace was to acknowledge the security risks of all the major powers, but also avoiding the childish "finger pointing" at all the various hotheads who had previously escalated limited crises/engagements of regional character, thereby escalating these into a world-wide war, with millions of dead and millions more negatively affected.
With the Treaty of Versailles, Europe went down the drain when their leaders decided to abandon the principle of Machiavellian fairness, and impose an IMbalance of power de jure at a green table, without the deterrence to enforce it in the future. NOT a "Machiavellian" principle, but the reasoning of weak minds who know they wouldn't have to face consequences if anything went wrong (the biggest examples of the "mommy's basement hero" in history, were the "winners" of WW1 for that matter).
By not inviting all, REGARDLESS of the excuses made, they thereby created a de facto reality which was the same as pre-1914. The security concerns of a neighbour was simply ignored. The NWO was dictated onto one of the neighbours (Versailles) whilst another was simply not invited either. This an observation based on the facts. Why was the situation of pre-1914 recreated again post-1918 at Versailles? In 1919 Machiavellian fairness was thrown out the window again when one of the powers was encroached upon by an "encirclement strategy" AGAIN.
The first encirclement took place in stages starting in the 1890s, and continued following the year 1900. After WW1 the encirclement strategy was continued again; instead of a small number of large encircling powers as before 1914, there were now (enabled by the Armistice and Versailles) a larger number of smaller encirclers after 1919, who either allied with or aligned with the "winners" (France/GB/USA). Thereby, wanted or not, these new smaller states became the "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer Theory) of outsiders. European history of 1,000 years, as either France or the Holy Roman Empire tried to encircle each other (2-front war danger), trying to get the vital upper hand in a struggle for Western European "top dog"-status, continued.
Just like in physics, every force creates a counterforce. The intention to "keep down/keep out/encircle" a neighbour, created an effect.
1
-
1