Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Rise of Asia"
channel.
-
7
-
4
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
As long as Europeans view their European Civil War (1914-45, see footnote) as a battle between good and evil, they will continue to lose.
The Chinese leadership recognized after WWII that their "Chinese Century of Humiliation" (1837-1947) had to be ended by first kicking out the outsiders (mercenary forces/Machiavelli). As long as Europeans (collective concept) continue to think in words rather than concepts, they will remain tools of a higher power. As long as Europeans continue to think in terms of "good/evil" rather than "European/outsider," they will remain tools of external "divisive forces."
The same applies to the Arabian Peninsula and everywhere else on the planet.
----
Footnote:
In Western narratives, from the Anglo-Saxon/Eurocentric worldview, a war in East Asia involving a multitude of ethnically, religiously, and linguistically related peoples is called a "civil war," but for the same historians and storytellers, a war in Europe between a multitude of ethnically, religiously, and linguistically related peoples is a "world war." This is the logic of the "post-West world" (US/collective West), which tells the rest of the world that "our problem is your problem, but your problem is your problem," just as they have been doing for the past 500 years, and it's "just the way it is" and the "rules-based order."
Well, it's no longer the year 1600, or 1700, or 1800, or 1900, or even the year 2000.
Well, it's no longer the year 1600, 1700, 1800, 1900, or even the year 2000.
The arrogance of power is only arrogance of power as long as you have the power.
As soon as the "power" is gone, you remain stuck in your arrogance.
1
-
1
-
@aleksandarnedeljkovic8104 No, both lost.
Both the "encircler" British Empire, and the rising economic threat they tried to encircle and encroach upon (also by proxy), lost.
"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]
WW1 and WW2 was one conflict, with a 20-year pause in the middle. The "winners" were the USA and Russia/SU/USSR.
Today, it is Russia which is the target of encroachment. The strategic aim just shifted further east.
1