Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Sebastian Sas"
channel.
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage" see footnote), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up. They would wait.
This is divide-and-rule.
3
-
Footnote:
Note that according to Machiavelli, the "princes" connected to the land and who benefited from their hereditary rule were also the GATEKEEPERS and were connected to what they saw as theirs. Whether one likes this style of inherited wealth and power or not, their role was the gatekeepers of being the managers of own affairs. Opposed to that, in strategy and human nature, the "mercenary" is the OUTSIDER (internationalists/globalists) who came/come or the profit and gain and who are NOT "connected" to the land and its peoples at all, and place their own interests, often vested interests, BEFORE the people who live on the land. This narrative is often distorted today into meaning that "to be a Machiavelli is to be an a-hole" which is a distortion of what the book was about. Machiavelli states clearly to keep ones "princes" in POWER, for to lose them would mean losing the GATEKEEPERS, who via their own vested interests, also protect the people who live in entire regions of the world. Via Trojan Horses, "democracies" can be CAPTURED (culturally-, economically-, politically-, emotionally and militarily), as a process which can be studied as the actors reveal themselves through their actions/events. This can be studied as systemic analyses.
2
-
2
-
1
-
@nhjhbmkuy7173 I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc...
Sorry to burst your bubble.
I've got some bad news for all you "never gonna fight"-fanboys.
YOU. WILL. GO.
Capturing the hearts and minds of the (mainly) young, rebellious, and easily-influenced, is a long-term goal of what W.T. Stead set out to do as the "Americanization of the World" (book) on all tiers: ideology, food, industrial products, movies, language, etc. Of course, what he didn't mention back then almost a hundred years ago when this global strategy started, was that this was in effect an old Roman-era strategy of power: to morph the conquered, to become "like Rome." Fill the bellies of the global masses ("Bread") and distract them with entertainment ("Circuses"), and then turn them into the tools of the empire.
Beware of the divide-and-rule strategy.
It gave whites ("Europeans") the basis of the power in the past, and they still employ it systemically today, on multiple tiers, and the BASIS of their POWER was the ability to keep all the other states/countries/races in the world "down" in power, by setting them up against each other, to a point of warring each other.
The advantage in power afforded to a system by a geographical distance from rival powers, in combination with parallel factors like an advanced political system with entrenched institutions, wide-ranging trade- and financial system, high population density, a skilled and highly educated work force, favorable climate, abundant raw materials or safe access to these, high level of industrialization, a technological edge, modern infrastructure, strong military, and a well-organized society on all levels, with a stabilizing wide-ranging unity within the own borders.
Divide-and-rule was the advantage they thought they held 100 and 200 years ago, and they think it still is today.
There can be only 1 "winner". The others are the systemic "cannon fodder" for the gain of the few "buck passers".
Democratic systems of course offer the eternal opportunity for eternal "passing the buck": nobody ever did anything, nobody ever decided anything, everybody can always simply point the finger, everywhere else. The perfect systems for all kinds of cowards, slimeballs, profiteers, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and finger-pointers...
Teach your children well...
Of course these hundreds of comments by Americans and Canadians mirror the comments made by hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become" or my personal favourite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the leadup to their declaration of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war").
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power (in stages after 1890), in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) and their "buck-catchers", nodded off by the "buck passers" which hold the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around. The global elites will draft YOUR daughter, before they send their own sons to the warzones they have created for their own systemic gains. The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging ...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbours, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed right through to today.
Whatever...
Guess who "wins"?
The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand).
The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction (MIRVs carrying nukes) as it was around the year 1945.
It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore.
1
-
1
-
Today we see 1914 repeating.
I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, Germans, etc. stating how they would never fight for their current, flawed governments and their flawed politics...
Sorry to burst your bubble.
I've got some bad news for all you "never gonna fight"-fanboys.
YOU. WILL. GO.
Democratic systems of course offer the eternal opportunity for eternal "passing the buck": nobody ever did anything, nobody ever decided anything, everybody can always simply point the finger, everywhere else. The perfect systems for all kinds of cowards, slimeballs, profiteers, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and finger-pointers...
Of course these hundreds of comments mirror the comments made by hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become" or my personal favourite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the leadup to their declaration of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war").
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power, in times of peace.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more freedom, but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around. The global elites will draft YOUR daughter, before they send their own sons to the warzones they have created for their own systemic gains. The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging ...literally too ignorant to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbours, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed right through to today.
Guess who "wins"?
The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
1
-
1