Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Kim Iversen" channel.

Yup... After 1945, the USA simply took over from the British Empire. Pax Britannica = employed the divide and rule technique, based on a geographical advantage of power. Pax Americana = currently employs the divide and rule technique, based on a geographical advantage of power. It was "invented" and perfected by Rome. Pax Romana = employed the divide and rule technique, based on a geographical advantage of power.
3
"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do." -- Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
3
@damedusa5107 The opposite of "sowing division" is "creating unity." That is according to most people a "good thing." Division = bad (unless of the "light side" like an example of dividing criminal organisations). Unity = good (unless of the "dark side," like criminal entities). You wrote (scroll up) that "sowing division" is a (default) "good" thing without elaborating. I asked you to elaborate why you stated "sowing division" was "good = effective."
2
The mega-rich fund the "2-party duopoly" meaning that no meaningful change will ever be possible, because third-party candidates are squeezed out of the electoral process, by means of the multiple hurdle/multiple cut-off technique. Have you heard about divide-and-rule?
1
@damedusa5107 "Divisions" and fostering divisions, and setting neighbors up against each other for systemic gain, is "good"? Please elaborate.
1
@damedusa5107 Bad as in "bloody".
1
@damedusa5107 You didn't elaborate as requested. You are trying to "counter" with a "feeling" you have. Keep on trying. You will try and try, until YOU become a victim of top-down division, then you will whine. I've seen your type all over the place.
1
@damedusa5107 You have already exposed your true self now, so there is no return to before: you are a "fanboy/girl" of division as political means, and as a form of rule. Note that I will honor that you are at least honest enough to admit this, unlike our (partially) slimy leaders who will never admit that they use this techinque of setting up "the blind" (aka people and their priorities, or so-called interests") against each other, luring some "in", to their clubs, and then using them to keep others "down" (in power/wealth) or "out." You are confusing the concepts of "balance of power" (equilibrium/equality) with the strategy of "divide and rule," which is to "rule" via an IMbalance and INequality. Please elaborate: How can a proposed political/power concept be "good/justified" if one "-ism" (your own) suggests it, but be "bad" if another -ism suggests it?
1
@damedusa5107 There is a fine line between the "light" and the "dark side" of intentionally sowing division. Whatever is done to "sow division" for personal or systemic gain, difinitely falls into the "dark side." You'd be surprized at how many people have never heard about it, nor what impact is has.
1
@damedusa5107 What is the opposite of "sowing division"?
1
@damedusa5107 It is only "effective" if one has a position of power. When one loses this position of power, it is no longer "effective" but "counterproductive": you lose...very quickly. If one is weak, it therefore makes more sense to unite (the opposite of "division"). I'll try to post a longer explanation, if YT permits: from experience I know YT often ghost bans these. [edit: OK, it immediately got ghost banned]
1
@damedusa5107 HOW TO LOSE YOUR EMPIRE: 2024 VERSION 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. Note the definition of ancillary: it does NOT mean "false" or "wrong." It simply states these theories, which could be correct in themselves, are not as important as other theories of a higher tier. Ever since the establishment of their 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 a primary source) 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. This had nothing to do with "Germany". Before that, it was France. 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 British 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. 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). 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 taken under duress or outside pressure, or otherwise, are fallacies. 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." If you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). EPISODE I: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races (edit: the term "races" was not used the same way it is today) 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." SOURCE: "ROYAL PAINS, WILHELM II, EDWARD VII AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910." 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. EPISODES II thru IV: Lotsa other stuff happening. EPISODE V: If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centered imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens: "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 Also known as the "peaceful transfer of power" like as if London had a choice. 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... No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire. If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power. When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most? Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER. After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided". The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative. "Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl... London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century. After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar 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. They preached Darwinism, and succumbed to it.
1
@damedusa5107 In case you are such a fan of divide-and-rule/conquer, how you you personally benefit?
1
@damedusa5107 Here is the issue. If you are a "grunt" (lol) like me, you don't benefit. Yes, that what you wrote is an excellent explanation of how the top tiers of society benefit from it (stronger systems). What you wrote reflects what George Carlin already explained in his standup sessions as the domestic tier of divide-and-rule. In case you think you can "divide" the 1%-ters in a similar manner they they divide us...well, good luck. But no, it's pretty much a one-way street. They divide us(grunts) for their own gain. That is the realistic view of the domestic tier of divide-and-rule. In case you disagree that it's pretty much a one-way street, please follow it up with an example of how a grunt can manage to divide the top tiers, without first going through the phase of "creating unity" bottom up (in other numbers, to beat sheer "mass" of power/wealth). Now, the IR tier. How do you think you (personally) benefit if the USA/collective West sets up entire regions, other entities (religious groups) or countries up against each other?
1
@damedusa5107 Yes, that is also how George Carlin explained it. The bottom line however is, that you (personally) don't benefit from it being used, because it is top-down. Unless of course, you belong to the "top 1%" of elites. Everyone else loses, because they are set up against each other. In international relations, it means Washington DC creates "default" enemies. Guess who ends up in the trenches?
1
The "freedom and democracy"-argument as a cover story for ulterior motives has a long history. THE PROTOTYPE COLOR REVOLUTION "For Jefferson, as he wrote to Abigail (in private), it was the end of an epoch. It was the end of one epoch and the beginning of another in Europe too. ... In Holland, a bourgeois democratic revolution ... who had been instructed in the American Revolution by John Adams, were cruelly suppressed or driven into exile..." Adams and Jefferson : a Revolutionary dialogue / Merrill D. Peterson, Digital Library of Georgia Online Plattform Setting up such "Color Revolutions" throughout their history, and training/supporting revolutionaries in the name of freedom, whilst in reality simply expanding the own spheres of interests by dividing others, has had a long American history. The divide and rule strategy of potentially damaging opposing systems (in the above case, in Europe), are kept in a state of revolutions and upheaval using the "freedom - revolution - democracy" arguments. Asia beware. Keep a lookout for the tell-tale signs of a US led divide and rule strategy, to set up Asians against each other as a repeat of history. Making use of the own geographical advantage of distance, the US advance via staging areas (like Hawaii, or the Philippines 1898) continued one step at a time, as other nations were set up against each other with clear intent, as revealed by private discussions and letters...not the kind words and speeches intended for the consumption of the MSM news readers, since even waaaay back then all MSM was already in the hands of the billionaire class. A few years later... "From the outset of hostilities, Roosevelt, his pro-Japanese sympathies notwithstanding, privately wished for the continued presence of Russia in East Asia to serve as a counterweight against Japanese expansionism. He perceived that Japanese domination of the region could prove as detrimental to American "Open Door" policy objectives as had the Russian domination. As early as March 19, 1904, he expressed in a letter to his friend Cecil Arthur Spring Rice (then the secretary to the British delegation in St. Petersburg) a hopeful supposition that "the two powers will fight until both are fairly well exhausted, and that then peace will come on terms which will not mean the creation of either a yellow peril or a Slav peril.” The astonishing pace of Japanese arms through the succeeding months gradually convinced the President that a rapid cessation of the war was necessary to preserve Russian influence in the contested region. Writing to Whitelaw Reid, the American ambassador to Britain, on June 5, 1905, Roosevelt admitted that he "should be sorry to see Russia driven out of East Asia,” and averred that "driven out she will surely be if the war goes on.” In sum, he stated to Senator Henry Cabot Lodge on June 16, 1905, "It is best that (Russia) should be left face to face with Japan so that each may have a moderative action on the other." 1994 Closing the Open Door Policy: American Diplomatic and Military Closing the Open Door Policy: American Diplomatic and Military Reactions to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 Reactions to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 Jonathan Bennett Ault College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences (pp.49-51) The same so-called good guys of history, because for these powerful US statesmen and their willing local tools, "crimes are those that others commit" (quote Noam Chomsky). These dividers of entire nations and continents are above the law. Don't ever expect the American legal system to punish such advocates of divide and rule and the bloodshed it results in. Don't expect a majority of Americans to call out their leaders for what they are doing. They either haven't been informed, or don't understand because of their warmongering MSM, don't know, don't care, or even if they did, are not going to stop their leaders... The overwhelming number of Americans, in the sinecure comfort of their "mommy's basements"-existences, are not like Noam Cholmsky, John Mearsheimer, or Brian Berletic, and many others who know what their government is up to and are actually willing to speak out. They are the real heroes of history, following in the footsteps of such "prototype whistleblowers" like Smedley-Butler... The "revolutionary training"-experts care little about the subsequent bloodshed. They are in complete disregard the biblical rule "do not steal/kill", those responsible will "wash hands in innocence", and "point the finger elsewhere" as deflection from their own actions. It is also arguably the cheapest way to expand the own sphere of influence, and gain markets for own products, which is why they do it. It is a cheap way to aquire spheres of influence because the heavy lifting, and bloodshed, is borne by local individuals who had been set up against each other. Asians beware... The "dividers" WILL come for you again.
1
RFK is an imperialist and in favor of Israel's war in Gaza.
1
Remember all their names. But as millions of individuals, maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy. All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Asia, Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map. Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers... Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible. It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"... Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country? Join up... It's free. Nobody will ask you to sign anything. Only once there is an impact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial well-organized rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting... Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, international big business, and lobby-friendly Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands. Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1