Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "DIE WELTWOCHE"
channel.
-
152
-
16
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
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.
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.
3
-
„Wenn zwei Nachbarländer gegeneinander kämpfen, dann wissen Sie dass die USA eines besucht haben.“ – Nelson Mandela (Zeitpunkt: Kalten Krieg/Region der Welt: Afrika)
Die Aussage ist nicht ganz richtig.
Wenn zwei Nachbarn gegeneinander kämpfen, dann wissen Sie dass zuvor ein Imperium dort war.
Es gibt auch den alten Witz: „Wenn zwei Fische kämpfen, dann war das Britische Imperium dort.“
Das ist eine Binsenweisheit über Imperialismus im Allgemeinen und darüber, wie Teile und Herrsche funktioniert.
Nachbarn warden gegeneinander aufgehetzt, indem Sie eine Vielzahl von immer gleichbleibenden Techniken und Strategien verwenden. Mit absoluter Sicherheit machten die Stammesführer Europas auf die gleiche Weise Witze über das Römische Reich, indem sie öffentlich ihre „Pax Romana“ zur Schau stellten, während sie im Hintergrund insgeheim einen „Nachbarn“ bevorzugten und ihn mit jeder beliebigen Begründung gegen die anderen aufhetzten.
Außenseiter werden in einen Staat kommen (auch schleichend politisch oder über NGOs), und diese Außenseiter versuchen, den Grundstein für die Teilung zu legen, indem sie den „neu gefundenen Freund“ gegen seine Nachbarn aufhetzen, und wenn dies in einem „Staat“ (Status quo) nicht gelingt, wird er einfach zu den Nachbarn gehen und dasselbe versuchen. Je mehr Nachbarn, desto größer sind die Chancen auf eine erfolgreiche Gewaltenteilung, was dem „Teiler“ zugutekommt. Denn wenn diese Nachbarn am Ende alle gegeneinander kämpfen, saugt der „Teiler“ im Hintergrund Gewinne (verschiedener Art) ab. Solche eingeführten und genutzten Spaltungen entspringen nicht unbedingt böser Absicht, da die meisten Teilnehmer einer Teile-und-herrsche-Strategie absolut keine Ahnung davon haben, dass sie zu „Akteuren“ in einem großen Spiel geworden sind, dessen Ausmaß ihnen unbekannt bleibt. Sogar diejenigen mit guten Absichten (politische Tauben) können Spaltung schaffen.
Keine noch so große Anzahl von Vereinbarungen, Abkommen, Verhandlungen oder Fähigkeiten wird die „Spaltungstäter“ jemals aufhalten, denn nichts, was sie unterzeichnen, wird ihre spalterischen Machenschaften stoppen.
2
-
Laut unsere Medien, ist jetzt auf einmal „die Ukraine“ an alles Schuld.
Wo sind all die Horden von Anhängern der „Ukraine-Flagge“-Schwenkern geblieben, die die Ukraine in den letzten drei Jahren bedingungslos angefeuert haben?
Schaut euch mal die Blogs und Kommentarbereiche der MSM an.
Plötzlich sind sie alle verschwunden …
Ein paar Tage und schon sind sie alle weg, zurück in „Mutti's Keller“ und auf der Suche nach den nächsten „Helden“, die sie wie bei Fußballspielen anfeuern können…
Diese Atlantiker.
4 Reiter der Geschichte:
- Krieg (durch bezahlte Söldnerarmeen)
- Eroberung (durch Stellvertreter/proxies)
- Hungersnot (weit weg)
- Tod (für den sich diejenigen entschuldigen, die auf Gewinn aus sind)
Die Strategen und Weltanschauungen der Atlantiker, weit weg von den Spaltungen, die sie fördern und durch Stellvertreter finanzieren, den ständigen Krisen, die sie anzetteln, den kalten Kriegen, für die sie den Grundstein legen, oder den heißen Kriegen die sie anzetteln; und deren Marinen ihnen Zugang zu den Ressourcen der Welt (einschließlich „Humanressourcen“) verschaffen, wollten schon immer lange Kriege, wenn die Aussicht auf systemische Gewinne durch die Nutzung eines geografischen Vorteils (Entfernung von kriegführenden Staaten) bestand oder wenn die Gefahr einer Einheitsbildung in Europa/Eurasien bestand.
Die aktuelle Marschroute des Imperiums, für die aktuelle jüngste und relevante Vergangenheit (auch bekannt als „lebendige Geschichte“ für eine oder zwei Generationen), die begann, als die UdSSR Ende der 1980er Jahre wirtschaftlich ins Straucheln geriet und das „zerteilte Jugoslawien“ das erste Opfer des „Teile und Herrsche“-Prinzips war.
Systemische/ideologische Expansion nach:
- Osteuropa.
- Schwarzmeer-/Balkan-/Kaukasusregion (südliche Zange der Marschroute)
- Skandinavien-/Ostseeregion (nördliche Zange der Marschroute)
Marschieren und marschieren und sich verwandeln und wenn es eine Reaktion oder einen Widerstand gibt, beginnen Sie mit dem „Fingerzeigen“ (narrative Kontrolle). Diese Art imperialistischen Verhaltens, wie es Washington DC und sein unterwürfiger „kollektiver Westen/NATO“ zeigen, begann nicht erst nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg.
Sie setzen die Machttechnik des „Teile und Herrsche“ ein.
Wer Spaltung sät, erntet Gewinne. So lautet die "divisen" den diese Atlantiker/Globalisten ernten.
Den „Reitern“ (Strategen) die säen, ist es egal, was hinter ihnen zurückbleibt.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Die größte Gefahr für die Welt sind ideologisch indoktrinierte Systeme, randvoll mit „nützlichen Idioten“, die schon immer die Welt beherrschen wollten.
Suchen Sie in einem Wörterbuch nach dem Begriff „Ideologie“.
Es handelt sich um ein System von Ideen und Idealen, insbesondere um eines, das die Grundlage wirtschaftlicher oder politischer Theorie und Politik bildet.
ALLES davon braucht enorme Unterstützung, um aus der theoretischen Ebene der Dinge auszubrechen, hin zu einer real existierenden Form von MACHT.
Es ist leicht, zum Werkzeug von Ideologen zu werden.
Diese Machthaber predigen aus ihren ideologischen „Blasen“, die „Fern-Seher“ genannt werden, und Millionen verneigen sich vor ihnen, und diese Machthaber haben Millionen dazu gebracht, zu glauben, sie sollten für ihre Ideologie lügen und töten und zu ideologisch indoktrinierten Kriegern werden. Wenn die Ideologie, die sie offen und stolz zur Schau stellen, Millionen tötet, sagen ihre Anführer, dass sich der Tod von 500.000 Kindern „gelohnt“ habe (Madeleine Albright), und dass dies überhaupt keine Auswirkungen habe. Millionen schauen auf solche Todesfälle und zucken nicht einmal mit der Wimper. Sie führen ihr Leben weiter. Millionen jubeln und schätzen ihre Ideologen und lieben Führer. Die Ideologie, für die ihre ideologisch indoktrinierten Anführer offen erklären, dass sie Soldaten zum Töten schicken sollten, ist Demokratie in Verbindung mit Korporatismus, und der Slogan, den sie seit dem Ersten Weltkrieg skandieren, lautet: „Machen Sie die Welt sicher für die Demokratie“. Das größte Beispiel für Doublespeak (George Orwell) aller Zeiten: Eigentlich war es immer die Absicht, „die Welt für US Grosskonzerne sicher zu machen“, und andere Regierungen zu unterwerfen, wie Smedley-Butler bereits vor 100 Jahren verriet.
Seltsam, dass die Bibel, die diesen Ideologen am Herzen liegt, nicht sagt, dass man „lügen, stehlen und töten“ solle, sondern dass ihre Anführer sie auffordern, zu töten, um die Demokratie zu verbreiten.
Eines dieser Axiome muss falsch sein.
2
-
2
-
Die größte Gefahr für die Welt sind ideologisch indoktrinierte Systeme, randvoll mit „nützlichen Idioten“, die schon immer die Welt beherrschen wollten.
Suchen Sie in einem Wörterbuch nach dem Begriff „Ideologie“.
Es handelt sich um ein System von Ideen und Idealen, insbesondere um eines, das die Grundlage wirtschaftlicher oder politischer Theorie und Politik bildet.
ALLES davon braucht enorme Unterstützung, um aus der theoretischen Ebene der Dinge auszubrechen, hin zu einer real existierenden Form von MACHT.
Es ist leicht, zum Werkzeug von Ideologen zu werden.
Diese Machthaber predigen aus ihren ideologischen „Blasen“, die „Fern-Seher“ genannt werden, und Millionen verneigen sich vor ihnen, und diese Machthaber haben Millionen dazu gebracht, zu glauben, sie sollten für ihre Ideologie lügen und töten und zu ideologisch indoktrinierten Kriegern werden. Wenn die Ideologie, die sie offen und stolz zur Schau stellen, Millionen tötet, sagen ihre Anführer, dass sich der Tod von 500.000 Kindern „gelohnt“ habe (Madeleine Albright), und dass dies überhaupt keine Auswirkungen habe. Millionen schauen auf solche Todesfälle und zucken nicht einmal mit der Wimper. Sie führen ihr Leben weiter. Millionen jubeln und schätzen ihre Ideologen und lieben Führer. Die Ideologie, für die ihre ideologisch indoktrinierten Anführer offen erklären, dass sie Soldaten zum Töten schicken sollten, ist Demokratie in Verbindung mit Korporatismus, und der Slogan, den sie seit dem Ersten Weltkrieg skandieren, lautet: „Machen Sie die Welt sicher für die Demokratie“. Das größte Beispiel für Doublespeak (George Orwell) aller Zeiten: Eigentlich war es immer die Absicht, „die Welt für US Grosskonzerne sicher zu machen“, und andere Regierungen zu unterwerfen, wie Smedley-Butler bereits vor 100 Jahren verriet.
Seltsam, dass die Bibel, die diesen Ideologen am Herzen liegt, nicht sagt, dass man „lügen, stehlen und töten“ solle, sondern dass ihre Anführer sie auffordern, zu töten, um die Demokratie zu verbreiten.
Eines dieser Axiome muss falsch sein.
2
-
2
-
„Offensiver Realismus“.
„Defensiver Realismus.“
Seit 1990 befindet sich Russland in der Defensive.
Nach den Ende des Kalten Krieges, ist der Albion ist auf dem Vormarsch, und hat seine Werkzeuge (Kollektiver Westen, von dem auch bald die Schweitz ein Teil wird) im Schach.
Richard Black, ehemaliger US-Senator: „Es ist uns egal, wie viele Ukrainer sterben. Wie viele Frauen, Kinder, Zivilisten, Soldaten sterben werden. Es ist wie ein wichtiges Fußballspiel, und wir wollen gewinnen.“
Sie sind das Spiel für diese Leute.
Sie interessieren sich nicht für Sie oder ihre Familie in weit entfernte Regionen der Welt. Ihre Machtsysteme sind auf den Vormasch.
Sparen Sie sich eine Diskussion mit den ideologisch indoktrinierten und auf die Brust trommelnden Dogmatikern mit ihrem „Papierkram“. Die meisten Vertreter dieser Art sind völlig argumentresistent. Es ist Zeitverschwendung. Deshalb greifen sie jeden sofort persönlich an, der es wagt, ihre heiligen Erzählungen und Glaubenssysteme auch nur kritisch zu hinterfragen, und nennen jeden, der die Millionen von Toten auf den Marschrouten ihrer von Menschen geschaffenen Systeme in Frage stellt, „eine Gefahr“. Diese Art gedeiht in großen, geldgetriebenen Horden, und diese Systeme haben rund um die Uhr Zeit, sich für jedes Argument eine lahme Ausrede auszudenken, um von sehr einfacher Logik und Vernunft abzulenken. Die älteste Strategie der Welt: „Was du nicht willst, dass man dir tut, das füg auch keinem anderen zu.“ Befolgen Sie dieses Prinzip, und die Kausalkette der Wirkungen führt zurück zur Grundursache jedes menschlichen Konflikts (vielen Dank an @dinachdt1498).
2
-
Sie haben Hitler/Berlin nie "falsch eingeschätzt.
Die nicht Kontinentale Europäischen Mächte haben immer schon versucht kontinentale Mächte als eigennutzige Werkzeuge zu verwenden.
-------------------
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, they ALL 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 GB 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 they ALL 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 WW2 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.
2
-
The "divide and rule" strategy gives millions of people the illusion that they are struggling for an own cause, whilst actually depleting their own energy fighting for the causes of other, higher powers...
[see footnote]
Just like "democracy" gives voters the illusion of choice, only to set them up in a collective "divide and rule"-setup, in which influence/TRUE power is funneled overwhelmingly in one direction: upwards.
Just like capitalism, gives advocates the illusion of chance, only to set them up in a collective "divide and rule"-setup, in which wealth is eternally funneled overwhelmingly in one direction: upwards.
Empires use and abuse human beings as...
- walls and barriers
- as proxies for the own gain
- as tools (instruments of power)
- as potential "staging areas" for future own use
- as "extensions" of the own power (or increased "reach" for the imperialist power)
Using other people are "cheap ways" to advance the American Century.
"Cheap" to the tune of 113 BILLION dollars to date, for probably the easiest avoidable war of the century...so far.
"To be clear, aiding Ukraine, giving the money to Ukraine, is the cheapest possible way for the US to enhance its security." - Zanny Minton Beddoes, editor-in-chief of The Economist
Just recently, and one of an entire string of similar such comments exposing the true strategy of power, Gen. Keith Kellogg (Ret.) said it's the "acme of professionalism" to use Ukraine to fight Russia because it "takes a strategic adversary off the table" without "using any US troops."
And then he added, "we can focus" on "our primary adversary, which is China."
China, the default enemy, to avoid Eurasian unity.
Divide and rule.
It's a long game...
Footnote:
The "divide and rule"-setup in any system, on any tier, is successful, because it employs an almost automated multiple hurdle/multiple cut off technique to keep good people "out" of the truly important positions of power. Do you remember Cassidy Hutchinson? She "failed" the test.
She "stumbled" on the very first "hurdle" on the road to true power, which is to remain silent.
...and that, in a nutshell, is how it works.
rgds
1
-
Zwischen „das Jahr 1900“ und „das Jahr 2000“ hat sich nichts wirklich geändert.
Diejenigen, die durch TEILUNG zu herrschen wollten, sind immer noch die gleichen Leute, nur leicht veränderte Systeme.
Apartheid = teile und herrsche
Apart = getrennt = teilen.
Versuchen Sie nicht, die Strategie zu verbergen, indem Sie neue Begriffe erfinden. Nur die Schwächsten werden nie zugeben, was sie tun.
Kritische Frage: Wie kontrolliert eine Minderheit eine Mehrheit? Wie kontrolliert ein weit entferntes Imperium eine große Gruppe von Menschen? Richtige Antwort: Benenne die Außenseitergruppe eine „potenzielle Tyrannei“ und TEILE sie in kleine Gruppen.
Auf die GETEILTEN werden von den Spaltern von außen in langsamen, inkrementellen Schritten „Zwietracht gesät“.
Alle historischen europäischen Weltreiche, einschließlich das Britische Empire, waren natürlich „Apartheidreiche“, da sie standardmäßig zwei-/dreistufige Systeme hatten.
Sie praktizierten die Strategie "Teile und Herrsche" als politische Maßnahme, genau wie es die südafrikanischen Machtsysteme in Südafrika taten, nicht nur innerhalb der eigenen Grenzen, sondern auch darüber hinaus.
Apart = getrennt = teilen.
TEILE und kontrolliere/herrsche.
HERRSCHAFT durch SPALTUNG.
Eine global operierende HEGEMONIE kann ebenso überall auf der Welt dieselben Teile-und-kontrolliere/herrsche-Spiele spielen, und die Grenzen müssen sich nie ändern, um die „Spiele“ spielen zu können. Die früheren HEGEMONEN hatten den Einfluss, um das Prinzip „Teile und Herrsche“ als politische Maßnahme zu praktizieren, genau wie es die Machtsysteme von Washington DC in den USA taten, und zwar nicht nur innerhalb der eigenen Grenzen, sondern auch darüber hinaus.
Um Spiele zu spielen, müssen sich die Grenzen nie ändern. Alles, was man braucht, ist MACHT, ein Regelwerk, um allen anderen Befehle zu erteilen, und eine Position der Straffreiheit bei Rückschlägen. Die Einstellung ist dann, dass jemand anderes die Rechnung bezahlen kann, wenn etwas schiefgeht, und dann herumstolzieren kann als ob die Sonne aus dem eigenen Sie-wissen-schon-was scheine. Dabei immer schon mit dem Finger auf die GESPALTETEN zeigen. Immer ZEIGEN...
Heute erzählen uns unsere leicht zu täuschenden westlichen Anführer im selbsternannten „guten Westen“ dass es Frieden geben wird, solange alle dem Glaubenssystem anhängen, dass „die Grenzen sich niemals ändern dürfen“. Jeder, der die etablierten Grenzen ändert, ist „böse“ (es sei denn natürlich, es sind die eigenen Hauptstädte oder ihre Stellvertreter, die dies tun: dann wird es „gerechtfertigt“, indem mit dem Finger auf andere gezeigt wird).
Der psychologische Begriff dafür, wenn Menschen andere für etwas beschuldigen, was sie selbst getan haben oder tun, ist fast immer Projektion, wenn es um irgendeine Form von Gewinn geht, wie etwa in der Politik. Die Allegorie des „mit dem Finger zeigen, drei Finger zeigen zurück“ ist auch genau richtig, denn der „zeigende Finger“ wird meist von sehr lautstarker Theatralik begleitet, während die „drei Finger“ verborgen bleiben. Die alte Allegorie deutet auf Kausalität hin, denn eigene frühere Handlungen, die verschwiegen werden, sind auch die URSACHE des „zeigenden Fingers“, auf den der Fingerzeiger abzulenken versucht. Es ist Teile derselben Hand. Dies ist nicht nur eine Allegorie, sondern auch eine Machtstrategie, die Politiker und andere systemische Gewinnmodelle verwenden, um abzulenken, Fehlinformationen zu geben, zu verschleiern oder Schuld abzulenken: Die schwächste und daher unwürdigste Form der Führung („Schuldzuweiser“) windet und schleimt sich so an die Macht. Leider sind schwache und erbärmliche Betrüger in demokratischen/kapitalistischen Systemen normalerweise sehr verbreitet. Wenn man in einem Meer von Schuldzuweisungen steckt, stellt sich der wahre Anführer der Herausforderung: Er/Sie nimmt die Schuld auf sich und *führt dann zu Lösungen.* Wir haben keine. Wir wählen schleimige, betrügerische Schuldzuweiser, und zu viele Menschen, die in ihrem „Brot und Spiele“-Leben feststecken, lieben die Show...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and lose is closer to what happened.
DIVIDE AND CONTROL
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels, and any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain, simply needed to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets. Once "divided", there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Some examples regarding the theory in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors would offer a foothold in Europe.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have such consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement after 1895, amongst other less "valuable" suitors, was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below). The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises made"...lol
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...lol.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below footnote explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics sterted with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947. It is alive and well. It has surrounded every aspect of power politics on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Same with the funding of opposing European leaders and states (for example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s).
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else, while "eating popcorn and chips"...
1
-
The "Hitler argument" is 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, they ALL 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 GB 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 they ALL 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 ended, 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
-
1
-
1
-
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 (ALL MORE THAN ADEQUATELY ELABORATED in the below comments section) 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
-
1
-
Die USA waren schon immer ein verdecktes, narzisstisches, egozentrisches Imperium, das sein wahres Ich hinter einer offen verkündeten Historizität als „Retter der Welt“ verbarg. Das ist Selbsttäuschung.
Die USA haben nie gegen jemanden gekämpft, gegen den Washington DC sie nicht zuerst aufgebracht hatte, und kein amerikanischer Soldat ist jemals irgendwo auf dem Planeten gestorben wo es nicht hauptsächlich um "Intressen" ging. Die Machthaber von Washington DC hatten zuvor immer zuerst den Grundstein für eine politische Spaltung gelegt, von der die US-Eliten zu profitieren versuchten, indem sie Strategien entwickelten, um ihren Gewinn zu erzielen.
In wirtschaftlicher Hinsicht erkennen die USA/der kollektive Westen die „Unabhängigkeit“ schwächerer Staaten an, untergraben jedoch die Souveränität dieser Staaten, indem sie sich in die inneren Angelegenheiten unabhängiger Länder einmischen. Solange diese Staaten klein beigeben und es westlichen Konzernen erlauben, einzudringen und den gesamten Reichtum ganzer Nationen abzusaugen, während die lokalen Eliten, die davon profitieren, stillschweigend abnicken, ist alles in Ordnung.
Lesen Sie Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket. Es ist immer noch die Vorgehensweise des „liberalen Imperialismus“, der nie endete.
Der Kolonialismus mag in den 1990er Jahren weitgehend „zu Ende gegangen oder gewandelt“ sein, der Imperialismus und die Strategie des Teilens und Herrschens jedoch nie.
1
-
Diese Geschichte, wiederholt sich im ewigen Kreis.
First they came for...
Father Niemöller's appeal to our morality, was of course also an appeal to honor basic principle's in logic and reason, which is the "balance of power". The logic of such politics is, that The bigger power comes for the others one-by-one, but is not going to inform the masses of the end plan. Therefore the logic is unity FIRST, regardless of any FEELINGS (appeals to emotions).
First they came for Spain (Footnote 1), because I did not live here and was distracted by the BLACK LEGEND and therefore did not care. Then, they came for tiny little Colombia, but I did not care because I was mesmerized by my own dreams of grandeur (Footnote 1). Then, they came for Central European monarchies, but I did not care because I did not live here and wasn't a monarchist and therefore did not do anything. Finally, they came for the British Empire, (footnote 2), and there was nobody left to forge a "pattern of relationships" with (footnote 3)...
Of course, what many don't realize is that the "Father Niemöller"-logic was a much a statement regarding the "balance of power" than it was regarding moral values: when "they" come for the last one, in its hour of weakness, there will be nobody else to turn to. The Lordships apparently misjudging the concept of balance of power, which was shifting from a purely European concept, towards a rapidly becoming necessary global concept. The entire concept of a balance of power is a neutral study, and any liberal "friendships" have no bearing on the greed of expansive forces of a commercial or financial manner, as London would find out after World War 2 (footnote 4). With regards to this systemic logic of cutting out one's feelings in order to protect oneself: first, the system U.S.A. came for the system Spain, but the system European empires were too divided to care. The end for European empires came fifty years later, when there was nobody left to speak for them.
With regards to the U.S.A. in its interactions with European powers: observation reveals that Washington, D.C. did not sign long term binding agreements of geopolitical and grand strategy nature with any European power. In the late-19th century, only London had the clout to forge a European alliance against U.S. expansion, so here is where Washington D.C. inserted the main "lever" of influence (strategy); but perceptions here were misguided.
They came with promises and nice deals to favourites...
--------------------------------------------
Footnote 1
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China": This gateway was in the form of the already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines (partial purchase of infrastructure) and Guam and protection for the seaways in between, as future axis of advance. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull as a fitting allegory. To achieve all of this Washington, D.C. needed European indifference for the cause of a weak failing empire from within their own European midst (Darwinism). Of course Europe was divided, but had they united to stand in solidarity with Madrid, then a war could have been averted. The "march route" of the empire.
--------------------------------------------
Footnote 2
"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]
-----------------------------------------------
Footnote 3
"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."[wiki]
"Saving the world" is of course an appeal to emotion.
Siphoning off the world's wealth is covered up by the storyline millions chant as "slogans" and adhere to with "banner waving" (teams of ingroups). The quiet part is kept quiet, which is how the divide-and-rule technique is used to create IMbalances of power, is kept quiet. Keep other apart with lies, promises, and own policies.
-----------------------------------------------
Footnote 4
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 neighbors. For the American century after 1900, 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). For the "divider," 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 it is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose 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...
1
-
1
-
Die größte Gefahr für die Welt sind ideologisch indoktrinierte Systeme, randvoll mit „nützlichen Idioten“, die schon immer die Welt beherrschen wollten.
Suchen Sie in einem Wörterbuch nach dem Begriff „Ideologie“.
Es handelt sich um ein System von Ideen und Idealen, insbesondere um eines, das die Grundlage wirtschaftlicher oder politischer Theorie und Politik bildet.
ALLES davon braucht enorme Unterstützung, um aus der theoretischen Ebene der Dinge auszubrechen, hin zu einer real existierenden Form von MACHT.
Es ist leicht, zum Werkzeug von Ideologen zu werden.
Diese Machthaber predigen aus ihren ideologischen „Blasen“, die „Fern-Seher“ genannt werden, und Millionen verneigen sich vor ihnen, und diese Machthaber haben Millionen dazu gebracht, zu glauben, sie sollten für ihre Ideologie lügen und töten und zu ideologisch indoktrinierten Kriegern werden. Wenn die Ideologie, die sie offen und stolz zur Schau stellen, Millionen tötet, sagen ihre Anführer, dass sich der Tod von 500.000 Kindern „gelohnt“ habe (Madeleine Albright), und dass dies überhaupt keine Auswirkungen habe. Millionen schauen auf solche Todesfälle und zucken nicht einmal mit der Wimper. Sie führen ihr Leben weiter. Millionen jubeln und schätzen ihre Ideologen und lieben Führer. Die Ideologie, für die ihre ideologisch indoktrinierten Anführer offen erklären, dass sie Soldaten zum Töten schicken sollten, ist Demokratie in Verbindung mit Korporatismus, und der Slogan, den sie seit dem Ersten Weltkrieg skandieren, lautet: „Machen Sie die Welt sicher für die Demokratie“. Das größte Beispiel für Doublespeak (George Orwell) aller Zeiten: Eigentlich war es immer die Absicht, „die Welt für US Grosskonzerne sicher zu machen“, und andere Regierungen zu unterwerfen, wie Smedley-Butler bereits vor 100 Jahren verriet.
Seltsam, dass die Bibel, die diesen Ideologen am Herzen liegt, nicht sagt, dass man „lügen, stehlen und töten“ solle, sondern dass ihre Anführer sie auffordern, zu töten, um die Demokratie zu verbreiten.
Eines dieser Axiome muss falsch sein.
1
-
1
-
Wir sollten aufhören, Lügen, Fehlinformationen, betrügerische Praktiken, Doppelzüngigkeit und andere Mittel, mit denen Millionen von Menschen absichtlich oder unabsichtlich getäuscht werden, als „Fehler“ oder „kleine Versehen“ zu bezeichnen.
Wir sprechen über Politik.
In den meisten Fällen geht es höchstwahrscheinlich darum, die Menschen zu verwirren und abzulenken.
Es ist Politik, also heißt es in den meisten Fällen „Teile und Herrsche“.
------------------------------------------------------
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
The people of West Asia (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 outsiders have made 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 easy to divide people. 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 a weak mind 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 equally.
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...
1
-
Im Februar 1948 sagte der Policy Planning Staff von George F. Kennan: „Wir besitzen etwa 50 % des Weltvermögens, aber nur 6,3 % der Bevölkerung ... Unsere eigentliche Aufgabe in der kommenden Zeit besteht darin, ein Muster zu entwickeln, von Beziehungen, die es uns ermöglichen, diese Position der Ungleichheit aufrechtzuerhalten."
Und das tun diese Herren.
Amerikas Verbündete und Feinde in Europa werden immer noch gegen einander aufgebracht und dann verbrannt, um sicherzustellen, dass diese Ungleichheit bestehen bleibt.
So wird die Strategie „Teile und Herrsche“ umgesetzt.
Sie bringen europäische und eurasische Nationen gegeneinander auf. Das „Spielbuch“ Großbritanniens und der USA seit mehr als 100 Jahren. Lesen Sie Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) und Brzinzki (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
.................................
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 gentlemen do.
America's allies and enemies in Europe are still being turned against each other and then burned to ensure that this inequality remains.
This is how “divide and conquer” is implemented.
They pit European and Eurasian nations against each other. The UK and US playbook for more than 100 years. Read Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Brzinzki (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
Money is their vehicle to allocate resources.
It's the physical resources of the planet which are limited, and who CONTROLS the flow of printable money, controls the flow of resources.
That is how those in CONTROL keep some "down" and others "out" of their own systems of gain.
Obviously, there are not enough resources for the entire planet to live the same lifestyle as those systems in CONTROL.
It has nothing to do with "meritocracy" but is a PREMEDITATED strategy, and how well your systems do financially or systemically (countries/companies/etc.), depends on their LOCATION ON THE MAP (geopolitics), or whether they bow down and "lick boots" or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Theories based on good vs bad leave a lot of room for bias and interpretation depending on the vantage point of the storytellers of history. These stories are therefore overwhelmingly subjective, and therefore appeal to the emotions of an audience.
On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: The theory is a systemic analysis which is overwhelmingly neutral and objective and is therefore a dull topic to most people on the planet.
Why "dull"? Because people want to hear "stories".
The theory, however, is not a "story".
It states how INTENTIONS lead to EFFECTS.
At its core level, the theory states that throughout history there were two opposing forces in action when it comes to the concept of gain. All other human interaction when it comes to the topic of gain are subject to this. These opposing forces are not the commonly held truism as being the forces of good vs. bad/evil, but rather those forces which wish to unite to create their own systemic concord, using a variety of techniques, and those forces which gain from division, using a variety of techniques of power.
What evolves out of that as causal chain of events is then the friction, which is created as these opposing forces collide, which then fosters the emergence of narratives of good and evil, by providing the catalyst (human nature). Note: words have definitions and meanings and context matters, not only when it is beneficial from their own standpoint.
Every single struggle for power ever, every single crisis about a man-made system ever, and every single war ever, has arisen out of these two opposing forces of concord/discord (causality). Anybody may of course try to find exceptions to this rule, and will find none, unless one engages in typical human behavioural patterns.
Name the struggle, and one can point out whether it arose out of the attempt to create concord, or discord. Every single good vs. bad narrative (the "stories" people tell themselves, as they are creating systemically useful "ingroups and outgroups") ever has arisen from this very simple axiom.
On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: At its most fundamental core, the theory states that where there are intentions by systems to create unity, the opposing forces to such unity, or systemic actors, would then try to divide observed forces of unity, using key strategies, and vice-versa: where intentions of trying to create division are observed by actors trying to create unity in systems, key strategies are employed to overcome these divisions, to achieve unity in a system. These take place at the same time, making a timeline difficult to assess, contributing to the favouring of pleasing narratives for own causes, as a way of convincing large numbers of people.
Like a double-helix, these forces envelope the timeline of history. It does not HAVE a "start" or "stop."
The tier of interaction is irrelevant, and where there is an intention of achieving systemic gain, the strategies will closely resemble each other: from the micro- to the most macro level of all: International Relations.
1
-
Theorien, die auf Gut vs. Böse basieren, lassen viel Raum für Voreingenommenheit und Interpretation, je nach Standpunkt des Geschichtenerzählers der Geschichte. Diese Geschichten sind daher überwiegend subjektiv und sprechen daher die Emotionen eines Publikums an.
Zur Wechselwirkung zwischen Systemen und Strategie: Die Theorie ist eine systemische Analyse, die überwiegend neutral und objektiv ist und daher für die meisten Menschen auf der Welt ein langweiliges Thema darstellt.
Warum „langweilig“? Weil die Leute „Geschichten“ hören wollen, weil sie in einer „Gut vs. Böse“-Dichotomie gefangen sind.
Die Theorie ist jedoch keine „Geschichte“.
Sie stellt fest, wie ABSICHTEN zu WIRKUNGEN führen.
Auf ihrer Kernebene stellt die Theorie fest, dass im Laufe der Geschichte zwei gegensätzliche Kräfte am Werk waren, wenn es um das Konzept des Gewinns ging. Alle anderen menschlichen Interaktionen, wenn es um das Thema Gewinn geht, unterliegen diesem. Diese gegensätzlichen Kräfte sind nicht die allgemein akzeptierten Binsenweisheiten, die von Gut gegen Böse/Böse ausgehen, sondern vielmehr jene Kräfte, die sich vereinigen wollen, um ihre eigene systemische Eintracht zu schaffen, indem sie eine Vielzahl von Techniken einsetzen, und jene Kräfte, die von der Spaltung profitieren, indem sie eine Vielzahl von Machttechniken einsetzen. Was sich daraus als kausale Ereigniskette entwickelt, ist dann die Reibung, die entsteht, wenn diese gegensätzlichen Kräfte aufeinanderprallen, die dann die Entstehung von Erzählungen von Gut und Böse fördert, indem sie den Katalysator (die menschliche Natur) liefert. Hinweis: Wörter haben Definitionen und Bedeutungen, und der Kontext ist wichtig, nicht nur, wenn er aus ihrer eigenen Sicht von Vorteil ist.
Jeder einzelne Machtkampf aller Zeiten, jede einzelne Krise um ein von Menschen geschaffenes System aller Zeiten und jeder einzelne Krieg aller Zeiten sind aus diesen beiden gegensätzlichen Kräften der Eintracht/Zwietracht (Kausalität) entstanden. Jeder kann natürlich versuchen, Ausnahmen von dieser Regel zu finden, und wird keine finden, es sei denn, er zeigt typische menschliche Verhaltensmuster. Nennen Sie den Kampf, und Sie können darauf hinweisen, ob er aus dem Versuch entstand, Eintracht oder Zwietracht zu schaffen. Jede einzelne Gut-gegen-Böse-Erzählung (die „Geschichten“, die sich die Menschen erzählen, während sie systemisch nützliche „Ingroups“ und „Outgroups“ schaffen) ist jemals aus diesem sehr einfachen Axiom entstanden.
In ihrem grundlegendsten Kern besagt die Theorie, dass dort, wo Systeme die Absicht haben, Einheit zu schaffen, die dieser Einheit entgegenwirkenden Kräfte oder systemischen Akteure versuchen würden, die beobachteten Kräfte der Einheit zu spalten, indem sie Schlüsselstrategien anwenden, und umgekehrt: wo Akteure, die versuchen, Einheit in Systemen zu schaffen, die Absicht haben, Spaltung zu schaffen, werden Schlüsselstrategien eingesetzt, um diese Spaltungen zu überwinden und Einheit in einem System zu erreichen. Diese finden gleichzeitig statt, wodurch eine Zeitlinie schwer einzuschätzen ist, was dazu beiträgt, angenehme Erzählungen für die eigenen Zwecke zu bevorzugen, um eine große Anzahl von Menschen zu überzeugen.
Wie eine Doppelhelix umhüllen diese Kräfte die Zeitlinie der Geschichte. Es gibt keinen „Start“ oder „Stopp“.
Die Ebene der Interaktion ist irrelevant, und wenn die Absicht besteht, einen systemischen Nutzen zu erzielen, ähneln sich die Strategien sehr stark: von der Mikro- bis zur Makroebene überhaupt: Internationale Beziehungen.
1
-
Wenn 90% der Menschen sich ein "Victor Orban" als Kanzler wünschen...
-----------------------
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Europe is already lost, and it started down the slippery slope following the year 1900. The window for adapting is closing fast. In this regard, I'll refer to a recent questionnaire carried out in Kiev, in which the interviewee honestly answered the question what the election of the Trump admin will mean to the Ukraine, with "The Ukraine is e-ffed, and will end like Poland in 1939." This is far from anecdotal, since it is an actual strategy of power to "bleed friends, and gain." Ukraine today = Poland 1939 = "fight to the last Pole" in 1939, and fight to the last Ukrainian soldier today. The way history rhymes, reveals the strategies of power.
That answer is valid for the USAs "friends" (see Kissinger's logic of it being "deadly to be the USAs friend"). The problem is that Europe is filled with weak and sycophantic leaders who make friends with people who tell them exactly what they can expect. For any Eastern European, an eternal NATO as protective shield is quite the speculative assumption as default setting for an argument, seeing that it was only quite recently formed (with regards to the history of Europe). There should therefore be no definite conclusion that it is going to last forever (Lindy's Law). NATO was created in order to surround/encircle the SU after WW2, as the "fist" of European power which was steered by the USA as it rose from the ashes of WW2, and for exactly this purpose. It's function was to ensure US global hegemony and domination, and encircle/encroach on the USSR together with Japan, Formosa/Taiwan, South Korea, etc. (as staging areas) on the other side of Eurasia.
GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Only the fact nukes were available saved the planet from a conventional "WW3"-scenario declared out of a local/limited war, and which would have invariably started soon after 1945, and after a short breather filled with limited wars around the fringes. All accompanied by new set of "finger pointing "Who started it?"-rhetorical geniuses who would have been set up against each other, sitting in the trenches of such a "conventional WW3"-scenario. Thank goodness both sides had nukes, so the restraint was systemic and declaring war would have been a MAD act.
That was of course in opposite to the logic of both WW1 and WW2, which were declared by the hegemony, from the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER (long war scenario) strategizing how it could win, if only such a declared war remained a "long war scenario" in which others bled for the continued status quo.
What saved the planet after WW2 was over, was that there would be no way to make a nuclear war a "long war scenario."
If one wants to reason and understand "Why WW1/WW2?" That's it. Create a situation which would be unacceptable for oneself (grand strategy of becoming encircled by a pattern of relationships), then impose this exact grand strategy onto the power rising in economic strength, and then wait for the situation to deteriorate, calling out a "world war" at an opportune moment, gathering in all the little "buck catchers" to do most of the fighting and dying, by standing off from the conflict as long as possible, using a GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER. After WW2, NATO was created (first step of escalation), in the self-declared Cold War, which started in 1946 ("Iron Curtain" as first emotional appeal, followed by further step-by-step strategy of escalating reality) because it was useful to the ambitions of Washington DC to become the world's leading power. Read the strategy papers. There was no "hot WW3" after 1945, because that would have been kinda self-defeating for the new global hegemony to declare it, based on some or other local limited war being declared the own "final red line".
Reality: Before 1945, the then global hegemony which was London before 1944/45, and Washington DC afterwards...
- Declared WW1 (out of a series of local limited wars on the continent), to avoid the single hegemony on the continent.
- Declared WW2 (out of a series of local limited wars on the continent), to avoid the single hegemony on the continent.
- Declared the Cold War, by encircling its main continental European/Eurasian rival. "Declaring" a world war out of that, was not possible, so wars remained "by proxy". Note the word "hegemony" is a term/defined word, not a country (different definition). The hegemony changed in the course of WW2.
Let's see if the pattern (geopolitics/grand strategy) rhymes again...
NATO can be disbanded or weakened the minute it suites the Pentagon/Washington DC, by simply withdrawing from it by pushing issues until some of the signatories sheer out, dividing its power (divide-and-rule = pull bricks from the wall to weaken it). During the Cold War, NATO became useful as "buck catcher" (John Mearsheimer theory) to be employed against the SU, and after the 1990s it remained a useful "buck catcher" for the hegemony after its purpose actually ended. From the ashes of this disbanded/divided and collapsing NATO, the next non-nuclear little power/proxy like Poland can then be steered by the hegemony, using its off-continental position of power, as political clout and military power.
If the Pentagon/Washington DC decides to leave NATO, who's going to stop them? Internally, in US domestic politics, there will be enough finger-pointing FOX-news-tier fools showing up screaming "Maybe those Euro-weanies should have just paid the 2%?!?"(fingers pointing/blame game). Any politicians dream-come-true scenario in free societies. The writers of history won't even have to work too hard to cover up the strategy. The narrative writes itself. The deception covers itself, by those who never read the strategy papers, creating a slew of "support" which justifies any pre-conceived strategy.
Rule the world, by division. If one already knows what games are being played, one can take educated guesses about the future, which will be quite accurate: The weakening of Germany/France, and their economic collapse? Already predicted, because that's what happens if one bases the own POWER on division, and follows the master divider (Washington DC/Pentagon) without questioning. That Europe will collapse because of its weak leadership structures of power, all taking place today as people watch on in surprise or horror? All already predicted, more than 10 years ago. All of these causal effects of own actions (power) and inaction (weakness) have already been discussed by top geostrategists over the past 10 years or so, and available to those who follow these discussions.
What happens if the USA simply adapts/adopts the "Greene Amendment," and simply determines that "NATO is not reliable" (sic.)?
If there's suddenly a lot of pressure from the various and multitude of competing entities of POWER within the USA (lobby groups, strategic think tanks, isolationists, non-interventionalists, plus the pressure of the so-called "street" as public opinion) to leave NATO, who in Europe will make them stay? In grand strategy, the off-continental European power can pull the "Uriah move": after Europeans become set up against each other, then withdraw when the flames fan up, then PIVOT TO ASIA and instigate war here, hoping more willing fools will step forward to "catch the buck" here too.
Note, that "The Pivot to Asia" IS already the strategy.
Set up others, then "pivot" somewhere else (grand strategy).
What makes anybody think somebody like a Mr. "America First"(see footnote) Trump cares about an economic rival to the USA's global hegemony, a united and strong Europe?
Note, that similar to the post-WW2 reality which set in after 1945, the last man standing is also a strategy of power.
If everybody fights and weaken themselves, who "wins"?
In order to see the reality today, we must be honest about reality in the past.
------------
Footnote 1:
Wiki: "The Withdrawal Clause; This means that after 20 years since the signing of the treaty which was in 1949, thus 1969, any member state that wishes to leave just has to inform the United States that it wants to leave, and then after a year it formally leaves."
Footnote 2:
The slogan America First was not coined by Trump, since it goes back to Wilson and WW1 and the starting phase of the US global ambitions, signaled to all interested parties by its declaration of war on Spain in 1898. Obviously, the USA joined WW1 for "cold, hard, American interests" (strategy of power, restated by Mitch McConnel as variation of Lord Palmerston's "states don't have friends, only interests" and the intent of gain). With WW1, the USA set out to economically capture the European "friends" through debt, or the debt trap diplomacy through war expenditures, hidden behind appeals to emotions.
1
-
An eternal NATO is quite the speculative assumption, seeing that it was only quite recently formed (with regards to the history of Europe).
There should therefore be no definite conclusion that it is going to last forever.
It was created in order to surround/encircle the SU after WW2, to ensure US global hegemony and domination, and encircle/encroach on the USSR together with Japan, Formosa/Taiwan, South Korea, etc. (as staging areas) on the other side of Eurasia. Only the fact nukes were available saved the planet from a conventional "WW3", which would have invariably started soon after "WW2" ended, and after a short breather filled with limited wars. A new set of "finger pointing "Who started it?"-rhetorical geniuses would have been set up against each other, sitting in the trenches of such a "conventional WW3"-scenario...
Thank goodness both sides had nukes, so the restraint was systemic.
NATO was created because it was useful to the ambitions of Washington DC to become the world's leading power.
NATO can be disbanded or weakened the minute it suites the Pentagon/Washington DC, by simply withdrawing from it by pushing issues until some signatories sheer out.
After the 1990s NATO became useful as "buck catcher" (John Mearsheimer theory) to be employed against Russia.
If the Pentagon/Washington DC decides to leave NATO, who's going to stop them?
What happens if the USA simply adapts/adopts the "Greene Amendment," and simply determines that "NATO is not reliable"? If there's suddenly a lot of pressure from the various and multitude of competing entities of POWER within the USA (lobby groups, strategic think tanks, plus incl. the so-called "street" as public opinion) to leave NATO, who in Europe will make them stay?
Cool as a "Uriah move": set up Europeans against each other, then withdraw when the flames fan up, then PIVOT TO ASIA and instigate war here, hoping more willing fools will step forward to "catch the buck". There will be enough finger pointing fools showing up screaming "Maybe you Europeans should have just paid the 2%?" (fingers pointing/blame game)
Any politicians dream-come-true population. They won't even have to work too hard to cover up their strategy. The deception writes itself, by those who never read their masters' strategies...
What makes anybody think somebody like a Mr. "America First"(see footnote) Trump cares about an economic rival to the USA's global hegemony, a united and strong Europe? You don't think any of this is "true"?
----------------------------------------
footnote
Wiki: "The Withdrawal Clause; This means that after 20 years since the signing of the treaty which was in 1949, thus 1969, any member state that wishes to leave just has to inform the United States that it wants to leave, and then after a year it formally leaves."
footnote
The slogan America First was not coined by Trump, since it goes back to Wilson and WW1. Obviously, the USA joined WW1 for "cold, hard, American interests". I hope nobody thought it was to "save the world".
1
-
1