Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "The Burning Archive"
channel.
-
Snyder is just another ideologue.
Trying to fall back onto the "right/wrong" angle of analysis, as most historians do, already confirms that it is not an analysis, but a feeling/emotion, generated by the amygdala, or the "filter for emotions," meaning that a scientific analysis of the propagated (his)story already reveals a key flaw in the statements. The key flaw is this: People have "feelings" for large ingroups like empires, which are not based on analysis per scientific method.
Because of the way the brain works, people store romantic images of ingroups and political entities (like "nations", "countries" or "empires") and systems they hold dear, like capitalism, which are in no way plausibly based on a scientific analysis of facts. An analysis of facts reveals that the blind spot bias is a form a tribalism.
In conclusion, when asked to "rate" (a word with a definition) their own favourite ingroups/entities/systems/heroes, human beings use heuristics (aka mental shortcuts), and their own deeply-engrained biases, because the average brain cannot handle the millions of bits of data necessary to draw correct conclusions. A typical brain shards information, like a computer, into smaller compartments (creating sub-theories), but doesn't link these various micro-analyses (sub-theories) correctly because of deeply-engrained biases and fallacies in reasoning.
Because the own standpoints are already biases and deeply-flawed, humans are quickly triggered into knee-jerk reactions, generated by the "fight or flight"-programming of the brain. When one is a member of such ingroups, one's brain is pre-disposed to consider the flawed/immoral standpoints of the own "side" as being more valid than the more correct/moral standpoints of the "outgroup" and finger-pointing sets in. Most people are already so deep down the "rabbit hole" themselves, that they cannot see out. They then reveal the "hole" they are stuck in, with the words they use.
One of the easiest "fight/flight"-instincts is to scream "Your biased!?!!" (finger pointing) very loudly, even though the own standpoint of the offended individual is already biased towards the own ingroup, as the default setting, meaning that the initial emotion/allegation cannot be substantiated by any logical/reasonable explanation, and therefore remains a "feeling". In other words, the own standpoint, theory, hypothesis, opinion, or analysis is already so biased that it is flawed, but it is still the benchmark by which other standpoints or theories are judged.
The apologists cannot substantiate why they feel that somebody else's theories/analyses are (quote) "biased." Why not? Because these are overwhelmingly emotions (pathos), based on own feelings. Historical analyses of human thinking processes have already concluded that individual emotions overwhelmingly cannot be trumped by scientific analyses (logos/ethos) by most human beings. It needs a stronger emotion, to trump another emotion. This basic flaw in reasoning by human beings is then used/misused by the "tops of the pyramids" of power who steer people against each other, by means of emotional appeals. The ruler class, has already known all of this for thousands of years (aka manipulation). They already know and use it to their own advantage, to keep the pyramids of top-down POWER, pyramidal in shape. Individuals who believe in their "rights" to make claims they cannot personally substantiate, are the easiest to deceive by their own top tiers...
The short version of the above, is that individuals are more likely to "like" something they are born into, and support it, or to express adoration for a system which is close to them. At some or other tier, almost every individual is connected to the system/entity closest to them. Some even proudly proclaim their "rights" to be biased, and these then constitute the easiest to manipulate and steer as tools. These individuals love the systems they were born into, and if they can be made to hate others, they are perfect little tools, or to quote Kissinger "dumb stupid animals" who can be steered against others. Note, not "all" (a defined term) are prone to such deceit. If the reader does not belong to such individuals, this logic/reasoning is of course not meant for you (individual). Unfortunately, we live in a world of thin-skinned easily triggered snowflakes, who always think everything is a personal attack.
_The entire above logic, is the basis for the logic/reasoning to always keep a just balance of powers between systems, on all tiers, to avoid one system from overpowering another.
Just remember that if one considers "might makes right" (imperialism) as fair, it also means that one is going to lose own "rights" as soon as the next "might" comes along, and your own leaders haven't established a fair globally-valid system based on mutually beneficial laws and cooperation yet.
In case your intellect has been roused then this essay is substantiated by scientific research, which can be proven by searching a few key words.
rgds
25
-
Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar.
Washington DC s strategy is constant, using a geographical position of power.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global equillibrium (natural order) as man-made "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million human beings creating "gardens" for themselves, at the expense of billions of other human beings, like the USA/collective West has done to the "jungles" these past 500 years, hiding behind their stories of hubris and jingoism...
The powerful use deception to torpedo any attempt of regional/over-regional/global equillibrium covertly (hawks). Good cops (neolibs/global-lusts) and bad cops (imperialists/militarists), hiding behind facades of empires, talking down to, and gaslighting the plebs in their "bread-and-circuses"-INequillibrium, all well-trained to be finger-pointers at their favorite bad guys...
This is divide-and-rule.
11
-
9
-
7
-
7
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Europeans "divided" by a line drawn on a map (this "B-B line"), without them having a say in matters, and with them expected to "man the parapets" of the resulting "wall".
Played again, and again...
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players.
Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
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." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
The reason I always recommend these books first is because it points to how divide-and-rule is implemented, even though it is never mentioned. Anybody who knows how divide-and-rule is implemented, can read any book and then recognize the tell-tale details revealing the strategy. This is divide-and-rule, a long-term strategy of power which is revealed by the events, not the words used by analysts who are all biased to an extent. The overall strategy is divide-and-rule, and one can implement it with a few key advantages, mainly:
1) the distance from the evolving events
2) the POWER (economic, political, military, financial) to afford advantages to own instruments of power
3) the time to wait, without compunction, granted by the luxury of 1) "distance," to await how events one has contributed to, unfold.
We in search of unity, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature.
The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector).
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
6
-
5
-
The "mask" has never been on. The USA is what it always was. A politico-economic system which has always intended to gain, if all others lost. You don't have to study thousands of books and watch endless debates on the topic "How US foreign policy works."
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and using friends, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others.
The imperialists and their apologist even chant the same slogans today, and still use the same strategies of expansion as they did 500, 200 and 100 years ago, but are too ignorant and indifferent to either know or care. As always, the warning voices of the sane halves are ignored, downplayed, "finger pointed" at as "unpatriotic," or as being "in bed with the enemy", and many other forms of equally "rhyming history." It is what they spend billions on every year so their empires can keep on marching marching marching marching to the jolly tunes.
The systems and corporations came in droves for SYSTEMIC EXPANSION and all they ever wanted was peace...peace...PEACE....PIECE...
A little piece over here for a little American/NATO base.
A nice little piece over there, of the Nordstream project.
A piece of the Panama Canal.
A tiny sliver of those Ukrainian raw materials.
A nice little chunk of a percentage of political influence.
And ALL of Greenland...
The meddling created by the own proactive divide-and-rule strategy of power then results in effects:
Imperialistic meddling is always a CAUSE to which there will be a resulting EFFECT.
5
-
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.
5
-
It's neither. It is a divider.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million gaining at the expense of billions, as the USA/collective West has done these past 500 years.
I'm sure Chinese and Russian leaders will imnediately agree to this, and our US/collective West will do as they've always done: pretend to wish to "sign up for it" overtly and ostentatiously (doves), but use deception to torpedo such attempts of global equillibrium covertly (hawks).
Good cops (neolibs) and bad cops (neocon).
This is divide-and-rule.
4
-
3
-
3
-
HOW TO LOSE YOUR EMPIRE: 2024 VERSION
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all history books.
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Note the definition of ancillary: it does NOT mean "false" or "wrong." It simply states these theories, which could be correct in themselves, are not as important as other theories of a higher tier. Ever since the establishment of their Empire, London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." (From a primary source)
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. This had nothing to do with "Germany". Before that, it was France. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's fatal mistake was snuggling up to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the British Empire. This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address issues as they rose. The two powers started nodding off each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or taken under duress or outside pressure, or otherwise, are fallacies.
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
If you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
EPISODE I:
"... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races (edit: the term "races" was not used the same way it is today) becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
SOURCE: "ROYAL PAINS, WILHELM II, EDWARD VII AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what story we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
EPISODES II thru IV:
Lotsa other stuff happening.
EPISODE V:
If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centered imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens:
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003
Also known as the "peaceful transfer of power" like as if London had a choice.
Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power.
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided".
The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative.
"Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A Big Three to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
They preached Darwinism, and succumbed to it.
3
-
To a neutral observer, the term "imperialist power" is a neutral term, and not affiliated with any particular power, but rather revealed by the actions of powers. Therefore the WW2 "carving up" of the Korean Peninsula was an act of imperialist powers (USA, GB, SU), who simply clashed soon after the "mutual old enemy" (fascist powers) had been defeated. Both "sides" intended to use the local populations on useful areas of the map for future expansion, and each side had the own "good side/bad side" narrative. Who lost out, due a loss of own power? The peoples who lived on the area of interests of the outside powers.
The people of Korea, who have been divided and ruled over ever since WW2, after having previously been the playball of empires which surrounded them (European empires with interests in China and the Far East, Russia, Japan, and the later joined by the USA).
Staging areas and the "marching routes" of empires.
Definition: "In military uses, a staging area is a place where troops or equipment in transit are assembled or processed.[1]
The US Department of Defense uses these definitions: (DOD) 1. Amphibious or airborne-A general locality between the mounting area and the objective of an amphibious or airborne expedition, through which the expedition or parts thereof pass after mounting, for refuelling, regrouping of ships, and/or exercise, inspection, and redistribution of troops. (DOD) 2. Other movements-A general locality established for the concentration of troop units and transient personnel between movements over the lines of communications ...[2] Often and historically this military staging area has been termed a point d'appui ... Unlike normal bases, the facilities of a staging area are temporary, mainly because for a certain time it will hold much more troops and material than would be reasonable in peacetime. Militaries use staging areas to deploy military units, aircraft and warships plus their materiel ahead of an attack or invasion. In former times this used to be generally the border area of one's own country, but in recent wars (Gulf War, Kosovo War, Iraq War) it may also be the border area of another unrelated country granting access." (source: https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Staging_area)
In the last part, the description is not entirely correct, since globally available staging areas are not a modern phenomena. In former times empires always employed such "direct or indirect" staging areas far away from the own heartlands as points on the axis of advance of their own empires. A "staging area" is not defined in extent: in the battlefield context of "battlefield tactics" it could be a town or field for the assembly of troops and vehicles, but in its largest form in grand strategy it can be entire countries or whole islands for massive armies, navies or air forces. The advantage of a staging area meant "no storming of beaches facing direct enemy fire", and probably the most famous example of such a staging area was the UK during World War 2, used for the gradual build-up of British and Empire forces, as well as the orderly arrival of allies like the US armed forces before D-Day in 1944: all in relative safety.
Such staging areas are often termed "unsinkable aircraft carriers". Staging areas are often referred to using colloquial expressions, or human body parts, in order to facilitate understanding of the concept: for example, Napoleon coined the term "pistol pointing at the heart of England" (heartland of the enemy) for Antwerp as jumping off point for a large invasion fleet, and therefore explains the reason why Belgium was created and given a permanent neutral status within a "concert" of nations, as a way to help avoid future wars by understanding the fears of another power, and addressing these fears in a decent manner. It is a part of military strategy, and since a large part of history of empires deals with military strategies, it is also necessary to delve into the subject matter, analyse historical events, in order not to become mislead or the "useful tool" in the propaganda campaigns of the present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_strategies_and_concepts
Staging areas will be found on the regions of the planet where states have interests, as the US DoD definition already alludes to by pointing out the Iraq War (staging areas = Israel, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). They are often located in the fracture zones these empires create themselves (Spykman = "crush zones"), as cause/effect of the own policies.
Once one understands the axis of advance of empires, or where these interests are, one also understands the strategies and other sides' counter-strategies and why some regions of the planet historically turned into war zones, others not, or some future regions might become war zones. When coupling the concepts of "staging areas" and the "axis of advance" of empires, or the "marching route" of an empire, it becomes clear why British and Free French forces landed on Madagascar in 1942, in order to prevent it from becoming a Japanese staging area, in case the Japanese Empire intended to expand into the Indian Ocean. Apart from the direct "colonies" or "overseas territories" there are also the staging areas offered by "friendly nation status" afforded by treaties: the "oldest alliance in the world" as Anglo-Portuguese Alliance and based on treaties going back to 1294, stated that under any attack on British territory, that Portugal would "aid" (and vice-versa), and such a form of aid could be offering Portugal as "staging area" for the assembly of Empire forces in case of any attack by a third country, on Gibraltar.
Why Stalin wanted the Limitrophe States (1939) from whoever would sign them away to Communist takeover? It removed the British/French staging area in Poland in case of his own communist expansion southwards into Asia or eastwards into China (2nd Tournament of Shadows) "triggered" a British Empire flank attack or opened an exposed flank in the Baltic States, or Black Sea region, using a friendly power like Poland as a "staging area". Of course, a strategist like Stalin would much rather have these countries as his own buffer zones, when expanding elsewhere.
A few examples make it clear how creating such "staging areas" are a premier basis of expansion, whilst removing such possibilities from rivals are the other: the counter strategy, as recently witnessed in the Solomon Islands (standoff between China and the USA and allies). The territories are again becoming vital in the "shadow tournaments" (geopolitics), in view of BRICS expanding into South America, as they now are, and any future potential military angle to BRICS is already being contested today (all therefore being preventive actions). It also becomes clear why simply creating a neutral country won't work in case the "axis of advance" of the empires are not also addressed via treaties or accords (non aggression pacts, etc.). In other words, it won't help simply creating a neutral country, if these neutral countries then simply offer the "shields" empires intend to advance behind, by setting up their staging areas behind such neutral states or "barrier zones". It will lead to tension in the "spiral model" of diplomacy.
Taiwan, was always a staging area for empires, in a strategic location off the coast of China. The only thing which changed was the hegemons. First for Japan after 1895, because it facilitated the Japanese Empire's advance into China and the Pacific as quarter century later, and today for the USA since US troops are already stationed here even though it is legally still a part of China (International Law). Regardless of emotions, laws are not buffets from which one can cherry pick "favourites" and discard "icky laws" one doesn't like: one either abides by laws, or one doesn't. The side "pushing until something snaps" is clear, as the USA wishes to build up Taiwan as a staging area for its own future interests as its Pacific Rim "outer boundary" on China's doorstep.
Ukraine, and "NATO encroachment" after 1991 (Wolfowitz Doctrine advocating US global primacy):
Empires in advance are always looking for such potential staging areas, and here the recent Ukraine and Taiwan question (post 2000) point out which empires were "pushing" as their strategy, and which empires took a defensive stand.
Empires in defense of own homelands would always choose war to avoid a peacetime setup of such a staging area (see War of 1812 as a preventive US attack on Canada as potential "staging area" for the British Empire as exemplary). These wars are ALWAYS accompanied by a host of excuses, justifications, evtl. "false flags" or simply plain lies, and "WMDs" was not the first time such lies were used to deceive. Another was "Remember the Maine", which used an accident as an MSM narrative was created to point fingers at the "bad guys" (Spain). In reality, the US "marching route" WAS already previously set: form the US East Coast with its old money and industry, via the Caribean, the (to be completed) Panama Canal, US West Coats developments, Hawaii, Philippines, and so on. A look at a large-scale map will help in seeing such "marching routes", and why the "excuses/justifications" are ancillary in order to deceive those who'd have to fight to enlarge the empire.
Last but not least: those who want to "rule the world" are ALWAYS going to point the finger at others, who are equally creating one of two bases for themselves, extraterritorially. Even if they themselves have thousands of such areas, bases, aligned partners, etc. the BIG FINGER will point at any so slight "other side" and then the army of flag- and banners wavers will pick up from there, defending the empire with words. Objectivity has never been a core value of the typical fanboy or empire apologist.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Ufthak One can debate, and debate, and talk and talk forever about the why events unfold the way they do, or did in the past.
I say "the appeal to emotion" in the overwhelming majority plays a large role in how history is "steered", like a ship on the oceans: not foolproof, but a scientific approach (technology, navigation, skills, trained crew, etc.) can go a long way towards achieving the aim, by cutting out the function of the amygdala (feelings) in those involved (captain, officers, navigators, crew).
Imagine where a ship would end up if every single person followed their own priorities, feelings, or agendas? The acknowledged "role" of a leadership is to "steer" entire societies, countries, alliances, etc.
History can be steered like a ship, by steering people, proactively. This is the systemic analysis, which looks at the systems and the strategies employed, and cuts out the appeals to emotions (hubris, jingoism, ideology, etc.).
Afterwards there will always be a flurry of historians picking out their favorite random facts, telling us these are the only facts that matter, to ignore everything else, and we can only use these facts ("cherry picking") to explain what happened. They use the typical age-old means to convince (logos, ethos, pathos), and present their stories as a mix of it. I'm not interested in the "stories" they tell. I analyse what the "stories" are.
3
-
The USA is a casino masquerading as a country.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries so that any economic surplus generated by that country is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US government, and especially to US bondholders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is the dollar tributary of the weaker economies, and junior partners, being vacuumed off in order to please the controlling master.
"The USA is not wise enough to rule the world, we shall merely own the world." - George Washington (attr.)
Such warnings are, as mostly or mainly, ignored.
For those who challenge these systems and maintain their "princes" (Machiavelli/gatekeepers), citizens are perpetually at risk of being portrayed as the collective "villains" of history according to the US MIMAC-constructed BLACK LEGEND. The United States purports to act as a neutral third party, yet it is, in fact, the primary instigator of crises and conflicts where its "interests prevail." Historical evidence, such as the Nye Commission of the 1930s, illustrates that Washington DC has consistently been an aggressive actor, perpetually seeking proxies (favoritism as a strategy of divide-and-rule/conquer) to execute long-standing objectives aimed at subjugating other nations and transforming them into "dollar tributaries," or, if that is unfeasible, to fragment global regions. Terms such as balkanize, fragmentation, delineating borders, "our allies fighting for freedom," puppet regimes, and corporate interests consistently reflect a strategy of divide-and-rule, masked by the narratives of those who perceive themselves as innocent doves, believing they are a benevolent empire "always assisting the virtuous and the weak and oppressed."
Presently, Russia is viewed as the pariah for the "future carving knives," and the future BLACK LEGEND is being written right now as you're watching on, by employing a repertoire of US tactics and schemes that can be analyzed since 1776.
Ask the First Nations or Mexico and look at the strategy employed on them: it was the policy of divide-and-rule/conquer, and it remains persistent.
--------------------------------
MIMAC = Military Industrial Media Academic Congressional complex.
2
-
2
-
It is easier to divide people and systems than it is to unite them (see below comments section).
Dividing the opposing systems, is the first and easiest step towards power (see below comments section). Once divided, another system's power and strength is decreased, like taking bricks out of a wall, one by one...
Around 1900, Washington DC obviously saw their "opportunity" to step in and divide Europe even more by means of favoritism (see below comments section), as the monarchic principle waned at the end if the 19th century, the death of Queen Victoria being the symbolic "sword in the neck" of the end of the era of European balance of power (est. 1815).
London poured their division upon the planet, incl. their neighbors, waging the finger and exposing every weakness, in search of alignments for own gain, however carefully hidden.
But in the town of Washington DC today, it is well-known that their (economically) fat and (systemically) psychopathic "saviours" economically thrashed London in their hour of weakness, to within inches of their (colonial) lives, and took their beautiful Empire away from them (see below comments section).
Thus, they pulled the bricks out of the wall of European strength, until it collapsed.
Europe is a lost cause...
I'm looking at Asia, to see if they've learnt the "lesson" of the classroom, with a new bunch of US/collectivist West "finger-waging moralistic preaching" by "teachers" who have none...
2
-
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemon.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quite or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else?
Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
Wait for it...
2
-
Asking the wrong questions on a limited scope and timeline will not reveal the divide-and-rule technique.
The empire set off on the "G-G Line" from Germany to Greece, during the First Cold War after declaring war ("cold" war/1947).
It advanced to the "B-B Line" from the Baltics to the Black Sea (see footnote) after the "peace" was declared to the plebs after the 1990s, and a bright new future pwomised to all the children of history, believers...
How long do you think it will take for the empire, wriggling and writhing about ("divide-and-rule"), hopping over here and there ("pivoting") before they reach the "A-A Line"?
The goals of the "dividers" who wield the power, is simply that their politics is the continuation of war by other means...
‐-----------
The "B-B Line".
When people start thinking in terms of dichotomies like winning/losing, left/right wing, us/them, right/wrong, unity/division, they are already all "losers."
Think in terms of a desirable outcome. If not, lose.
Outsiders fabricate the "crescent of crises" around your heartland.
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
If outsiders come from outside and start drawing lines on the map, through your homelands without asking the people who live there.
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite. They allow outsiders to play the cards FOR them.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS. Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down. Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Rome. London. Washington DC.
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
2
-
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.
2
-
WW1 was the biggest US "regime change operation" in history.
"If the Allies at the peace table at Versailles had allowed a Hohenzollern, a Wittelsbach and a Habsburg to return to their thrones, there would have been no Hitler."
Winston Churchill, 26th April 1946
That short statement practically has "regime change" written all over it.
That short statement also makes it clear what happens if one removes the gatekeepers (monarchy) of a political system from power, which then opens the door for all kinds of ideologues.
They thought they could throw out the monarchs, and morph Germany into becoming "more like us" (old Roman technique of power), and there would be no consequences.
Whatever they thought, one thing is clear: US think tanks who wrote the 14 Points Speech KNEW they were far enough away from Europe not to have to face any consequences should their own suggestions combined with the invariably following top-down implementations result in blowback (causality).
So what had led Churchill to make such a statement? As part of the 14-Point Plan, Wilson demanded that Germany de-throne Wilhelm II, before any peace talks could begin. The Allies also refused a German delegation as part of the peace talks in 1919. WW1 was the USA's hitherto biggest "regime change operation" (Germany). Because here is what they tell you is history in thousands and thousands of books and docs: the "German people" or "German leaders" were the ones who "forced Wilhelm II into exile, or " forced the autocrats to abdicate because they were angry" or variations of that. Here is what they (usually) don't say (lie by omission): That it was the own side which had previously coerced other German leaders like Max von Baden into forcing the German government out of office, because that was a condition for armistice negotiations to take place.
Here is the timeline of events:
1) Coerce German leaders to topple the current Berlin government.
2) German leaders realizing there was no alternative to stop the war, topple the current government.
3) Omit step 1) for the "narrative of WW1", or pretend it never happened, and then "write history" that pleases the own feelings by simply pinning the flag on the timeline, saying that the history of that event started on "day x".
In order to find out what really happened, an interested history fan would have to delve into very specific books that cover the entire series of events, to find out the details. But, who does that?
From the primary source:
"The President would deem himself lacking in candor did he not point out in the frankest possible terms the reason why extraordinary safeguards must be demanded. Significant and important as the constitutional changes seem to be which are spoken of by the German Foreign Secretary in his note of the 20th of October, it does not appear that the principle of a government responsible to the German people has yet been fully worked out or that any guarantees either exist or are in contemplation that the alterations of principle and of practice now partially agreed upon will be permanent. Moreover, it does not appear that the heart of the present difficulty has been reached. It may be that future wars have been brought under the control of the German people, but the present war has not been; and it is with the present war that we are dealing. It is evident that the German people have no means of commanding the acquiescence of the military authorities of the empire in the popular will; that the power of the King of Prussia to control the policy of the empire is unimpaired; that the determining initiative still remains with those who have hitherto been the masters of Germany. Feeling that the whole peace of the world depends now on plain speaking and straightforward action, the President deems it his duty to say, without any attempt to soften what may seem harsh words, that the nations of the world do not and cannot trust the word of those who have hitherto been the masters of German policy, and to point out once more that in concluding peace and attempting to undo the infinite injuries and injustices of this war the Government of the United States cannot deal with any but veritable representatives of the German people who have been assured of a genuine constitutional standing as the real rulers of Germany."
Source: International Notes: Diplomatic Notes, Prepared By Allan Westcott, Ph. D., Instructor, U. S. Naval Academy, November 1918 Proceedings Vol. 44/11/189
Washington DC power mongers employ old Roman techniques of power, including the "morphing" of systems which favor the own ideological expansionist goals, and one of these old Roman techniques is divide-and-rule. 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. Not only Germany was divided, but also Europe was divided with a ruling.
This strategy is often misunderstood, in popular narratives composed mostly of "being friends" 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, so by 1945 the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover...
2
-
2
-
Asking the wrong questions on a limited scope and timeline will not reveal the divide-and-rule technique.
The empire set off on the "G-G Line" from Germany to Greece, during the First Cold War after declaring war ("cold" war/1947).
It advanced to the "B-B Line" from the Baltics to the Black Sea (see footnote) after the "peace" was declared to the plebs after the 1990s, and a bright new future pwomised to all the children of history, believers...
How long do you think it will take for the empire, wriggling and writhing about ("divide-and-rule"), hopping over here and there ("pivoting") before they reach the "A-A Line"?
‐-----------
The "B-B Line".
When people start thinking in terms of dichotomies like winning/losing, left/right wing, us/them, right/wrong, unity/division, they are already all "losers."
Think in terms of a desirable outcome. If not, lose.
Outsiders fabricate the "crescent of crises" around your heartland.
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
If outsiders come from outside and start drawing lines on the map, through your homelands without asking the people who live there.
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite. They allow outsiders to play the cards FOR them.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS. Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down. Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
2
-
2
-
One can never understand why China's communist leaders chose the "logic" of millions of dead and suffering as Mao's madness, unless one completely understands China's recent subjection as their "Century of Humiliation" (1839 to 1947). During these roughly 100 years, OUTSIDERS entered China and undermined its cohesion via the divide-and-rule technique. A strategy which aims to "rule" a region of the globe, by "division." That was China, carved up and managed by foreigners, during Europe's (and later US and Japanese) foreign meddling, which divvied up the rewrds amongst themselves, siphoning off gains.
The entire system they favor in the West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often repeated nice-sounding storyline. The graphic depiction of Yin and Yang is not only valid about the "good vs bad" dichotomy (Taoism), but can also apply to the model of "UNITY/CONCORD" vs "DIVISION/DISCORD".
As the model of Yin and Yang states, there is always some good in the bad, and always some bad in the good, and equilibrium is hard to achieve since human nature tends to allow the pendulum to swing past the point of equilibrium, towards the other pole. Equally, every system based on division per default, always contains some elements of forces of unity. And, the other way around: systems based on the default setting that unity is the main principle, will always contain elements of division. When studying thousands of man-made systems, one reaches the conclusion that some are more "top down" UNITY with some lower tiered "freedoms" allowed in order to keep the peace, whilst others are more "bottom up freedoms" with restrictions applying. Both meet in the middle somewhere, and then try to constantly balance powers between the various factions. A "Republic" is already a "meet-in-the-middle" approach, since it divides power on multiple tiers.
What happened in Europe post-1900 can be juxtaposed onto China's recent relevant history of trying to break free from Western dominated imperialism. To anybody who knows a bit of Chinese history, it becomes clear that our Western narrative of "WW2" does NOT apply to China, since China was already in a more or less bloody war between outside imperialists and meddlers (dividers of Chinese unity using local proxies). During its Century of Humiliation, China was a classical case of "war/policy/division" by proxy. Proxies were employed, funded, armed, and financed to achieve the division of China during the Era of European Imperialism.
The dividers have it easy.
All they have to do to create regional/global division, is to continuously lie to foster dissent, covertly steal for inequality, always meddle using political favouritism, and eternally instigate violence, by either outright declaring war or simply allowing wars to happen (not stop these wars, aka "enabling war as eternal event).
The local political forces had to compete with outside dividers which had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER during the 19th and 20th centuries. The local strategists used old strategies to try to re-introduce a fully sovereign China. A union which could be free of outside meddling, completely independent and which was there for Chinese interests first and foremost, and not at the behest of outside imperialist powers and their proxy rule and domination. During these roughly 100 years, the European imperialist powers were later joined by the USA and Japanese imperialist powers, and later Soviet and Western ideologies, all continuously using China as battleground. Trying to overcome the OUTSIDE DIVIDERS by playing the same game of more divisions, with yet more divided Chinese systems, is of course a dumb strategy, because the DIVIDERS will always win. If weak, and while weak, the outside dividers will simply politically capture the rising powers, and morph or incorporate these. Therefore, in order to overcome the outside division, those searching for more internal unity will choose a top-down form of unity, not the bottom-up form of division. You don't fight fire with fire, but with water.
One doesn't fight division with more division, if the intention is more unity.
Therefore when studying the "WW2" part of the Chinese Century of Humiliation (1839-1947), it becomes clear why the western proxy Chiang-Kai Shek was accused by his allies of "hoarding" his Lend-Lease, and not doing more to fight the Japanese. The local proxies in China during this battle of "post-WW1 China" as yet another link between WW1 and WW2, were already preparing for the war they KNEW would follow AFTER the Western narrative of "WW2" ended, and the West conveniently disposed of one of these outside proxies (Japan plus local collaborators). That WW1 and WW2 (1914 to 1945) had already resulted in a serious weakening of the European powers also, for the benefit of whoever was left in China (grand strategy) was also already clear. In our Western urge to name-brand wars, this post_WW2 phase is often referred to as "Chinese Civil War", whereas in reality it was simply ALWAYS an outside proxy war, carried out on the territory of China, which intended to DIVIDE China into interest zone (spheres of influence). This constant name branding affords the ability to hide the outside powers' divide-and-rule strategy of power.
WW1 and WW2 were one global struggle with multiple layers and which merely had a 20 year gap in between.
Do we live in eternal peace interspersed by wars, or do we live in eternal war, interspersed by peace?
In the eternal battle between unity/concord and division/discord, it is we who waste our time arguing.
Who is right or wrong?
Is it the "weak" who are right/wrong, or is it the "strong"?
Is it some the "the West" or is it some of "the rest"?
Is it the "democracies" or is it the "autocracies"?
Is it the "attacker" or the "defender"?
Is it the "blue team" waving their banner, or the "yellow team" chanting their slogans?
As they point fingers vigorously, arguing their "my ingroup" against "your ingroup"-dichotomies, here is one thing the opposites don't realize as they argue like children.
Who gains from division?
Who would gain from unity?
As the excited dissenters extend themselves, weaken themselves and end up totally exhausted with arguments, they don't realize they are all the victims of the biggest lie in history.
Who gains from eternal division?
Qui bono?
The finger pointers are at the receiving end of the biggest joke of history, for as long as they point the finger at someone else to try to pass the blame for their own previous actions, they stumble in broad daylight, and fall for the false prophets who deceive them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote:
We are being told that our preferred model/ideology of capitalism and democracy, with a strong independent legal system, is more bottom-up and by the people than top down. As long as we live in true forms of democracy, which do not intend to enforce top-down rule and domination, then that is so. However, we live in systems in which capitalism tends to morph into corporatism, which is totally (privatized/managed) top-down, with little in the form of freedom or bottom-up power. How these corporations employ the divide-and-rule technique is explained in a below comment.
1
-
Divide-and-rule is the easiest of all strategies to explain: when you reach the top, divide everybody else, by driving rifts between them, or deepening existing rifts. That's it.
"If someone can prove me wrong and show me my mistake in any thought or action, I shall gladly change. I seek the truth, which never harmed anyone. The harm is to persist in one's own self-deception and ignorance." - Marcus Aurelius
Some politicians and rulers may implement or deepen these divisions innocently and without thinking, but most know exactly what they are doing with their divisive tongues and their line-drawing divisions. It is their most successful technique that allows them to rule over us by preventing greater unity among people. This allows them to skim off enormous wealth from the gross national product that actually belongs to all people. If it is important to you, forward this message to others. Unite with those you are ordered to hate, according to Goethe because this is the counter strategy of "the wise". We should not allow them to continue winning in the same way for the next thousand years.
Divide-and-rule.
Draw lines, some "on the map", others invisible lines based on emotions/affiliations of individuals, then set the people up against each other.
If there is a problem, blame somebody else.
That is the historical Albion's way.
Incredible how many can be deceived for so long.
Despite the best efforts of the political doves, the political hawks keep conflicts alive by drawing lines in favor of one group over the other. The lines were often randomly drawn through tribes, through religious- or ethnic groups, to favor either the one, then the other. This created volatile hot spots of ethnic conflicts to use as pretext for intervention and occupation as the moral "rule maker".
------------------------------------------------------
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
The whole thing is then maintained by a house of cards made of lies and deceit, with billions of fiat currency.
---------------------------------------------------------
Selwyn Duke: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Often misattributed to George Orwell, the quote simply reaffirms what thinkers like Thomas Jefferson already concluded ages ago, which is that the easiest to deceive and influence are the rich ("interests"-crowd), proud (incl. false patriotism), hectoring (warmongering), swearing (shallow), carnivorous (greedy) individuals, often flocking in large herds forming "interests groups" of diverse enablers, united by common causes. When one studies the blogs and comments sections of the internet, one can see their comments everywhere, esp. prevalent under typically "popular- or narrative" history videos. They are all too easily swayed by their own human nature. Philosophy offers hundreds of similar quotes and parables from different epochs and cultural groups.
1
-
As long as Europeans view their European Civil War (1914-45) as a battle between good and evil, they will continue to lose by division.
The Chinese leadership recognized after WWII that their "Chinese Century of Humiliation" (1837-1947) had to be ended by first kicking out the outsiders (mercenary forces/Machiavelli). As long as Europeans (collective concept) continue to think in words rather than concepts, they will remain tools of a higher power. As long as Europeans continue to think in terms of "good/evil" rather than "European/outsider," they will remain tools of external "divisive forces."
The same applies to the Arabian Peninsula and everywhere else on the planet.
In Western narratives, from the Anglo-Saxon/Eurocentric worldview, a war in East Asia involving a multitude of ethnically, religiously, and linguistically related peoples is called a "civil war" (roughly spanning post-WW1 to post-WW2 East Asia/China) but for the same historians and storytellers, a war in Europe between a multitude of ethnically, religiously, and linguistically related peoples is a "world war" (roughly spanning WW1 and WW2). This is the logic of the "post-West world" (US/collective West), which tells the rest of the world that "our problem is your problem, but your problem is your problem," just as they have been doing for the past 500 years, and it's "just the way it is" and the "rules-based order."
Well, it's no longer the year 1600, or 1700, or 1800, or 1900, or even the year 2000.
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.
----
Footnote:
"He who will not reason, is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave." - Sir William Drummond
Become independent, if not then become the "D,S,A" (proxy) of someone else's dreams...
The arrogance of power is only arrogance of power as long as you have the power.
As soon as the "power" is gone, you remain stuck in your arrogance.
"Attachment is the great fabricator of illusions; reality can be attained only by someone who is detached." - Simone Weil
If one bows down to a man-made system of power, one already brings to the table all the prejudices needed to become enslaved to a system.
"The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn." - Alvin Toffler
If you spend too much time reading, and not thinking about what one is actually reading, one is no smarter than before reading a thousand books...
1
-
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century, just like every other POTUS in history. Some might have been more openly imperialistic, but they all served an expansive empire.
Peace? YES.
Idolatry? No.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Fact is that Trump, or any other previous admin, did not stop this "(systemic) slow march".
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemony.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quiet or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
Just claim hero status for the self, and blame everybody else for everything which goes wrong.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else?
Already predicted. Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
Wait for it...
1
-
1
-
@peterelliott2914 Slight correction. Centralized historical China never set out to achieve a global empire.
It has always and only been operating in its own border regions (East Asia).
To understand this, one must first understand the concept of "Chinese". Being "a Chinese" today is solely a nationality, NOT a language, ethnicity, religion, etc.
The Chinese empire has always been multi-lingual, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-ideological, multi-cultural, and as "multi-everthing-else" as Europe was on the other side of Eurasia.
That made both susceptable to outside meddling.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Military enterprises are the most effective means of keeping a people occupied, for nothing arouses their interest so much as an important war….Everyone who is able is ready to play his part either in council or in action, and all discontent is vented on the common enemy. The rest of the people either follow the camp to bring supplies, and to perform other necessary services, or remain at home to offer prayers and vows to God for ultimate victory; or, at least are so stirred by expectation and by news of the progress of the war that there is no place for thoughts of revolt in their minds. In thought or in deed, everyone is pre-occupied by the war." — Giovanni Botero
4 Horsemen of history:
- War (by paid stooges)
- Conquest (by proxy)
- Famine (far away)
- De@th (apologized for by those in search of gain)
According to Richard Overy all wars have as their basis four core objectives. Resources, belief (incl. ideology), pursuit of power, security issues, or combinations of these, or in combination with various other minor considerations.
The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The current marching route of the empire, for the current recent and relevant past (aka "living history" as being a generation or two) which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching and marching, and morphing and morphing, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
They implement the divide-and-rule technique of power.
Sow division, reap gains.
Those "horsemen" (strategists) who sow, do not care what follows in their wake.
1
-
Constraints. The AVOID crowd.
The REAL aim is China.
Russia, eventually "carved up" into smaller pieces and turned into future minions, is simply the means to an end.
Korea, Vietnam, Ukraine...
Will the little minions ("buck catchers" in strategy) ever learn?
Those who eagerly "carve up" others, even along arbitrary human-made boundaries on a map, dividing individuals, organisations, families, and businesses, are unlikely to agree with being "carved up" by someone else.
Korea was divided by imperialists during World War II (with the cooperation of the imperialist Allied camp) without consulting the local population about their priorities.
A few years later, they attempted the same in Vietnam, using the ongoing war of independence as a pretext (marketed as "the USA saving the world from communism"). This effort was unsuccessful.
The true objective of the Vietnam War: Containment of China
According to Wikipedia: "Main article: China containment policy. As articulated by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the Chinese containment policy of the United States was a long-term strategic initiative to encircle Beijing with the USSR and its satellite states, as well as: The Japan–Korea front, The India–Pakistan front, and The Southeast Asia front. Although President Johnson claimed that the goal of the Vietnam War was to ensure an "independent, non-Communist South Vietnam", a memorandum from January 1965 by Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton indicated that an underlying justification was "not to assist a friend, but to contain China". On November 3, 1965, Secretary of Defense McNamara sent a memorandum to Johnson, outlining "major policy decisions regarding our course of action in Vietnam". The memorandum begins by revealing the rationale behind the bombing of North Vietnam in February 1965: 'The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they support a long-term United States policy to contain China. McNamara accused China of having imperial ambitions similar to those of the German Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union. According to McNamara, the Chinese were conspiring to "organize all of Asia" against the United States: 'China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30s, and like the USSR in 1947—emerges as a significant power threatening to undermine our importance and effectiveness globally and, more distantly but more ominously, to unite all of Asia against us.'
Note that this is a common tactic in international relations: accuse the "other side" of actions that one is undertaking oneself. The strategy of divide-and-rule is kept hidden, while the opposing side is accused of having malicious intentions, without providing any actual evidence (the concept of "accusation without proof"). To encircle China, the United States aimed to establish "three fronts" as part of a "long-term effort to contain China": 'There are three fronts to a long-term effort to contain China (recognising that the USSR "contains" China to the north and northwest): (a) the Japan–Korea front; (b) the India–Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.'
Later, McNamara acknowledged that containing China would ultimately cost America a considerable amount of time, money, and lives. As is often the case, "extending" a rising rival power incurs "expenses", including lives, which is why the intention is to create proxies in artificial entities like "South Vietnam" to carry out such containment for the dominant power.
This is divide-and-rule.
Favouritism, or the "paid/supported proxy", can be employed during peacetime to undermine rivals or wage subversive warfare, or during wartime to reduce costs and losses while gaining systemic advantages after a "victory". When a proxy fails to achieve this "extension of the rival", it is quickly abandoned or discarded to cut the "investment", and a new proxy is sought. This pattern was evident in the 1930s: in 1939, the "first proxy" identified was Poland, and when Poland failed to "extend Germany" for a prolonged period, it was decided to provoke either Germany or the USSR to invade Scandinavia (Plan R4). Ideally, both Germany and the SU would invade Scandinavia, leading to a potential clash there, distracting attacks away from the heartlands. While Great Britain and France still cooperated, this was straightforward: both would benefit if the war "pivoted away" from Western Europe/British Isles into Scandinavia. If the attention could be focused somewhere else on the map, a Battle of Britain and a Battle of France could potentially be avoided, if the Germans became bogged down in Scandinavia for example...
That did not occur.
However.
Align with such individuals at your own risk.
They do not adhere to the Christian values they consistently boast as being "oh-so-superior" and worthy of admiration...
North Korea/South Korea (implemented "unsinkable aircraft carrier").
North Vietnam/South Vietnam (intention/failure).
East Ukraine/West Ukraine (in progress).
Always the same playbook.
The modus operandi has been consistent since 1776: advancing onto another power's borders (systematically), also through proxies, then blaming those who are encroached upon/encircled if they react, or blaming the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War advance began in the 1990s, so even if the Trump administration did not initiate the "marching order", it is a fact that he did not halt it either when he had the chance during his first term (2017-2021). This can be examined as empirical evidence (observation/map) which clarifies who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should avoid engaging with debaters who base their theories on ideology or emotions, especially not if the advocate reveals themselves as dogmatic, prone to logical fallacies or cognitive biases. Such individuals are not interested in outcomes but wish to make "debates" go in circles indefinitely, obfuscating, side-lining, and finger-pointing to evade the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current trajectory of the empire, which began when the USSR faced economic decline in the late 1980s, with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the advance)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the advance)
Continuously advance, trampling over one red line after another, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). If anything negative occurs, and lives are lost, always blame someone else. This type of imperialist behaviour, as demonstrated by Washington DC and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not begin solely after World War II. This marching order has been in place since 1776, with the first victims being neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territories were coveted. That was followed by Spain in the 1890s (put into action in 1898) whose desirable territories would create a link between the USA and East Asia.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries so that any economic surplus generated by that country is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US government, and especially to US bondholders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It remains the same today as it has since 1776.
The reality is that neither Trump nor any previous administration has halted this (systemic) "slow march" of systemic expansion, whilst getting the "buck catcher" to pick up the tab if things don't turn out as strategized.
Be cautious of the ideologically indoctrinated: Like a child, they confidently repeat things they do not know to be true.
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 behavioral 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 favoring 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.
Overy's 8 causes fits in perfectly as the "human catalyst" part of the above theory, which is often self-serving, with the intention to create pleasing narratives for the own "ingroup."
1
-
1
-
The powerful have used the strategy of divide-and-rule for thousands of years to drive a wedge between peoples.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe noted back then: "Divide and rule, calls the politician; unite and lead, is the slogan of the wise."
Some politicians and rulers may do this innocently and without thinking, but most know exactly what they are doing with their divisive tongues and their line-drawing divisions. It is their most successful technique that allows them to rule over us by preventing greater unity among people. This allows them to skim off enormous wealth from the gross national product that actually belongs to all people. If it is important to you, forward this message to others. Unite with those you are ordered to hate, according to Goethe because this is the counter strategy of "the wise". We should not allow them to continue winning in the same way for the next thousand years.
Divide-and-rule.
Draw lines, then set the people up against each other.
If there is a problem, blame somebody else.
That is the historical Albion's way.
Incredible how many can be deceived for so long.
In the age of European imperialism before 1945 it was mainly the British- and French Empires which kept global conflicts alive by drawing lines in favor of one group over the other. Previously it had been the "fading" empires or the "sick men" of Europe, like Portugal, Spain, or the Ottoman Empire. Later they were joined by others, in a long list: the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Russia (only bordering regions), Belgium, Italy, the USA, etc. The lines were often randomly drawn through tribes, through religious- or ethnic groups, to favor either the one, then the other. This created volatile hot spots of ethnic conflicts to use as pretext for intervention and occupation as the moral "rule maker". After 1945 the USA simply took over as global hegemony, but practising the same strategy of rule and domination as all the others before: divide-and-rule.
------------------------------------------------------
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups (e.g., Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
SETTLER COLONIALISM
The last 500 years of European/white settler colonialism as a subsection of the divide-and-rule technique. The strategy was "farms/forts" of the stronger power and using "might is right" as guiding principle to a systemic, slow advance into the lands of ingenious peoples all over the world. Same happened in North America, Australia, New Zealand, the Levant, South America, Southern Africa, etc.
Broken promises, broken treaties, looking for excuses to make the next 'step' (ratchet principle). The only places the strategy of slow ponderous expansion failed was where the local systems were too numerous or organized (East Asia). The "template" might have various regional differences, but the end effect is always the same. Slow, step-by-step advance of the own ideology, economic systems, corporations and political power.
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...
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, signalled to all interested parties by its declaration of war on Spain in 1898. Obviously, the USA joined WW1 for "cold, hard, American interests" and the intent of gain (economically capture the European "friends" through debt, or the debt trap diplomacy through war expenditures, hidden behind appeals to emotions).
1
-
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players.
Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
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." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
The reason I always recommend these books first is because it points to how divide-and-rule is implemented, even though it is never mentioned. Anybody who knows how divide-and-rule is implemented, can read any book and then recognize the tell-tale details revealing the strategy. This is divide-and-rule, a long-term strategy of power which is revealed by the events, not the words used by analysts who are all biased to an extent. The overall strategy is divide-and-rule, and one can implement it with a few key advantages, mainly:
1) the distance from the evolving events
2) the POWER (economic, political, military, financial) to afford advantages to own instruments of power
3) the time to wait, without compunction, granted by the luxury of 1) "distance," to await how events one has contributed to, unfold.
We in search of unity, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature.
The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector).
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
1
-
1
-
What you will be up against, as a well-funded being...
It's divide-and-rule.
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. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
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 (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump (Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
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-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favouritism 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 (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). 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 political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany (1871), was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy), and this "division" of the continent was subsequently strengthened, not weakened by the "ententes" (1904/1907): Divide-and-rule.
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not generally disputed by most historians. To avoid = to separate = to "divide" others...
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's 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. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation following the Civil War (1865), leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines 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/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favouritism.
"Favor" some above others...temporarily. For London, it meant "nodding off" the conquests of GB/British Empire in Africa, by not offering any substantial opposition to the Second Boer War, as "interests" were coordinated (see the Great Rapprochement between London and Washington DC following 1895). Sign away the independence of people, for own gains elsewhere, which is typical of the behavior of an empire. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but a global divide-and-rule strategy of power: divide Europeans and all others, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. 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. 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 tacitly supported the German position and insisted on Moroccan 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.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
Classical of typical globally effected divide-and-rule policies:
- the "ententes" which London made with France (1904) and Russia (1907), which encircled Germany almost completely by adding the oceans to the "encirclement" (this would have pleased Washington DC strategists greatly)
- the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which "divided" Europeans with a "ruling"
- the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine similarly "drew lines on the map" which "divided" Europe into "friends" and "enemies"
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
IT WAS THE (QUOTE) "POLICY OF THE WORLD"
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away from the effects of the own decisions, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
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", and kept 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."
[edited for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, diplomats, business elites, magnates, industrialists, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute to the divide-and-rule world, without even being aware of the fact. It does not matter if the actors are aware that they are aiding and abetting a divide-and-rule strategy of power they are probably not aware of. What matters is that The American Century looooves capitalism, corporatism, and democracy, because it offers the unending flow of dumbasses in search of personal/systemic POWER, who then cooperate with the hegemony at the expense of the own populations. For the "empire" ruling in the background divide-and-rule means advantages on multiple tiers resulting out of the fact that it is implemented (an example here, are the actions of Sir Lawrence of Arabia, who might or might not have known of his "role" in the Empire's divide-and-rule strategy of the Levant, and ME around WW1).
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes.
The "syndrome" is implicit bias, which blinds fans of certain power players or political ideologies.
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemon.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quite or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else?
Already predicted. See below comments section.
Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
Wait for it...
1