Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Dialogue Works"
channel.
-
69
-
The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
This is the theory.
According to the scientific process, these proclaimed "rules" must now be countered, by trying to find exceptions to these two rules.
According to the concept of "meaning of words" all exceptions to the rules which have been proclaimed, must be questioned: does this war for which the foundation was lain, or the war which was instigated, not avoided, "false flagged" into being, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, lead to disunity in another region of the planet (another continent). The theory, as stated by the words used, is not interested in anything else. It can either be falsified or it cannot.
-------------------------------------
"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. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... 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
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, which is that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory." That IS the premier priority of the powers not IN Eurasia, and still is.
Here are the critical questions.
If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division?
How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"?
Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power.
In a nutshell: Implement and fund delusional propaganda games. Nothing of substance, with the implemented events often the exact opposite of the the loudly proclaimed "values". In the background, keep other systems either down or out of the own systems of gain and luxury life (50% for us, the minority), on ALL tiers, often by force, coercian, or at gunpoint, if it cannot be bought or corrupted, all accompanied by continuous flurry of words without meaning, spread by the exact systems which gain from keeping everything the way it is (a "divide and rule"-setup of the world).
That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power).
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
18
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Washington DC/Pentagon doesn't CARE if they "win" or "lose." Only snowflakes care about the "winning/losing"-false dichotomy. They have already achieved their goal, which is European/Eurasian hate, fear, anger...
It's "divide and rule."
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or the British Empire's Mackinder/Pivot of History before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their geographical advantage.
With re. to how tools to implement the strategy are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..."
Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves.
Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as Kissinger implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combated by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today.
Today as we watch on, the Ukraine is being burnt to the "last Ukrainian soldier" accompanied by cheers of "...but, but, but they had a choice!!"
Poland will be next to be given a "choice," if the Ukraine fails as US/Western proxy and tool, in a long list of previous examples of the Washington DC/Pentagon-steered global strategy.
2
-
2
-
1
-
@tinaforbes1059 Yes.
Ever since 1776, and as policy since 1898 ("start" of US international imperialism).
The following essay will explain how first London, and then Washington DC used mainly divide and rule/conquer strategies at key watershed moments throughout history in order to effect world domination, mainly facilitated by a geographical advantage. Unlike conventional wisdom suggests, such policies were not only implemented in overseas territories and colonies, but were indeed also used against the continental European powers, within the limitations of the power balance at any given time in history. In order to first become and then later stay the world hegemon, distance coupled with a financial and technological edge, were converted into political means (policies) by London power players. Up to the early-20th century, these realities gave London that slight edge over their continental rivals which were already divided due to a variety of reasons. As time progressed and war ravaged Europe in the first half of the 20th century, technology advanced further, so that the geographical advantage once enjoyed by London, passed over to the USA and Washington DC's power players. After World War 2 the multipolar world up to the 19th century turned bipolar, then unipolar as the Cold War ended or the systems morphed.
Historically, European conflicts between systems based on structurally similar dynasties, turned into a struggle between ideologically different systems. Rather than the previous limited wars up to the early-20th century, wars then became total. The different systems tended to strive to overpower, marginalize, integrate or destroy other conflicting systems if symbioses was not possible. The key to success here, and the novelty of the theory presented, was that the core means employed were strategies resembling divide and rule/conquer. The systems which had the geographical advantage, either allied with, beguiled, befriended or otherwise favored other systems if useful for own gain. What set these loose alliances of friendships or ententes apart from other systems which also united, was a lack of obligation to react in any specific way during times of crises or wars. The distinct advantage of geography being that those with such a competitive advantage would not have to fear an existencial threat to the own systems and could be more bold in international relations, or delaying actions in crises or wars until a favorable point on the timeline, based on the technological standpoint humanity had reached at the point in time.
Such divide and rule strategies were in fact standing London policies, disguised by careful use of language in policies. Since the logic of balanced powers to avoid great wars was widely accepted within the framework of the Concert of Europe, no other capital city seemed to have noticed or objected. Rather than aiding relative peace, which persisted in most of Europe for around a century after 1815, London's policy standpoint as sole "balancer of powers", resulted in an ever greater risk of a total war of the systems. At the core of Europe, these older continental European systems grew in extent and power in the leadup to 1914, under constant stress in efforts to balance power due to the fact that land borders resulted in more exposure to danger from a neighboring system: placing continental powers in a situation of a relative geographical disadvantage while engaging in crises or wars. While London could always find a power to temporarily ally with on the continent, the reverse was not possible (on Britain), because the UK had achieved an early unification process. The "decider" would always be London. Continental powers therefore faced the geographically disadvantageous locations with regards to expansive aims. This was directly opposed to faraway systems which had the geographical advantage of distance from this core of the Old World. Few seemed to have noticed the potential for MAD as time passed. Due to her geographical advantage, and at London's sole discretion, the "balancer" London stood aloof. The technological standpoint at the time meant she was detached from all danger to the own heartland which was England. A role which was guarded by the Royal Navy. London was the "sole divider and sole decider of wars". That eventually lead to the unintentional end of European world rule and domination, including their own. It was a careful use of language which meant that most of the above did not need to be kept hidden, but the words used indeed reveal a standing policy of "divide et impera". In fact, most of it happened out in the open, in newspaper articles, treaties, conferences, political summits, etc. and for all current witnesses to observe and study because just like today, it is possible to drive multiple policies in parallel. Most observers simply did not recognize the events for what they were, or they noticed and considered the status quo as a meritocracy or a well-deserved own right, or they did not pay attention. Distinct systems with many similarities and many differences employing strategies as a way to achieve greater gain for the own system.
The theory comes in two parts, that of 1) divide and rule, in which case the dividing power is actually in a position to exploit an imbalance in power, to impose a ruling on another side by ensuring the continued rift between opposing systems, and the more common 2) divide and gain, where the power intent on creating an advantage for its own system, has to suffice with splitting potential unity in the making apart, but lacks sufficient power to impose a ruling.
Divide and rule/conquer is revealed by events.
Unlike human beings, events don't lie, steal, or kill.
Unlike human beings, events which are proven to have happened, and are not disputed to have occured, do not deceive, manipulate, or "tweak" the own perceived "truths" in order to generate positive feelings in a flurry of "99% ancillary details", which then distorts vision...
1
-
The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail.
The faster the rest of the world realizes this, the better.
Washington DC power mongers employ the divide and rule technique of power.
In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Europe was divided, with a ruling.
This strategy is often misunderstood, in narratives composed mostly of "being friends" or "being rivals/enemies", even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover...
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
"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." (end of)
There is no doubt that Washington DC is attempting to repeat this "success" (pov) in the rising powers of Asia.
The strategy can be observed to be implemented in the same way as was set up post-1900 in Europe, but in Europe the "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer theory) were Great Britain and France.
Today, it is India being used in the same role as France was 100 years ago. In case of a wider war in Asia, as India is set up against China, qui bono if all lose?
The technique Washington DC employed up to the year 2000, is an almost exact repeat of the technique they used to overpower Europe around the year 1900: DIVIDE AND RULE.
1
-
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) 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 outsiders 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".
"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
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Too stupid to avoid disunity.
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?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite?
Today we see millions of followers of Islam, praying in their mosques in West Asia, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS, and 125 years ago we saw millions of followers of Christ, praying in their churches, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS. Oh, wait...we didn't see it...
We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
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
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart".
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
1
-
"God" is the original "divider" using favoratism ("chosen ones"). The technique is to get mankind to do the exact opposite as stated in the 10 Commandments, thereby initiating the divide-and-rule technique of gain: deceive men to lie, steal, ki!!, bow down to money and other human beings, idolize wealth, idolize man-made systems, and covet the resources below the feet of others, then bear false witness with regards to what they initiated...
》》》》》》》》》》》》》
The powerful have used the strategy of divide-and-rule for thousands of years to drive a wedge between peoples.
As Johann Wolfgang von Goethe noted back then: "Divide and rule, calls the politician; unite and lead, is the slogan of the wise."
Some politicians and rulers may do this innocently and without thinking, but most know exactly what they are doing with their divisive tongues and their line-drawing divisions. It is their most successful technique that allows them to rule over us by preventing greater unity among people. This allows them to skim off enormous wealth from the gross national product that actually belongs to all people. If it is important to you, forward this message to others. Unite with those you are ordered to hate, according to Goethe because this is the counter strategy of "the wise". We should not allow them to continue winning in the same way for the next thousand years.
Divide-and-rule.
Draw lines, then set the people up against each other.
If there is a problem, blame somebody else.
That is the historical Albion's way.
Incredible how many can be deceived for so long.
Before 1945 it was mainly the British- and French Empires which kept conflicts alive by drawing lines in favor of one group over the other. Other Europeans and later the USA joined in ("collective West" as mutually beneficial cyclic dynamical systems of gain). The lines were often randomly drawn through tribes, through religious- or ethnic groups, to favor either the one, then the other. This created volatile hot spots of ethnic conflicts to use as pretext for intervention and occupation as the moral "rule maker". After 1945 the USA simply took over as "divider-in-chief". The new Albion.
The New Testament is the antithesis of the Old Testament with regards to the message. The ambiguity between the two books, hopping from one to the other, is exploited to confuse and mislead...
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA has lived beyond its means for more than 50 years. Now it's all coming to a head.
After 1945 the US government and 1%-ters set out to gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves if not direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony.
Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources.
That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only International Relations. Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet.
This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule).
Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
The USA came out "on top" after 1945 because of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, not because of better leaders, a better government, or anything else.
A geographical advantage meant the ability to employ division as tool, more successfully than other systems: which is the employment of the divide an rule technique.
No, the US government was not "good," unlike its people, but rather used geographical advantages to be more slimy than everybody else. Sorry, if reality triggers anybody. Sorry, but at least 50-90% of Americans are NOT privileged enough to benefit from the "50%" of resources the empire vacuums up, claiming it as its justified "right" to CONTROL.
Whatever.
You'll soon find out.
Then, from the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other systems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that all other systems are bad/evil, want to rule the world or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthroat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and the true reality of human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources.
footnote
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1